Ladder test with a 357 Mag Revolver at 25 yards

[357shooter]

I decided to do some ladder testing and see how it works out. I realize there are objections to doing this, but I had to try it out. I'm looking for handloaders that have tried ladder testing, in their revolver, to see how it worked. Is this a sound practice for finding loads for a revolver?

So far, using a Blackhawk with a 6.5 inch barrel, in 357 Mag, it's promising. I've been able to find a few great loads, and also eliminate some powder-bullet combination's that a Taurus just loves.

As a matter of fact, it's working better than I had hoped. Most of the time, taking a practice from the rifle guys and applying it to a revolver flat doesn't work. Or at best, doesn't matter.

I have a snub-nose and will test that at some point. That will be a real shock if it works. But, test results have been shocking before. Working (so far) in a 6.5 inch revolver is a shock already.

Has anyone else attempted ladder testing with their revolver(s)? If so, what were your results?

I'm not looking for a debate on why this isn't possible, because I have holes in targets that say it is. I'm looking for others with test results, one way or the other, as a sanity check. I guess what I'm asking is, what did the holes in your targets reveal? Gun, caliber, distance info is all helpful.

Thanks guys

P.S. The Ladder Test: Incremental Load Development Method is what I'm referring to. Info at: http://www.desertsharpshooters.com/manuals/incredload.pdf

[buyobuyo]

Very cool. I use the OCW method to develop loads for my rifles and have thought of trying it with my pistols. Just never gotten around to it.

[Wally]

I decided to do some ladder testing and see how it works out. I realize there are objections to doing this, but I had to try it out.

So far, using a Blackhawk with a 6.5 inch barrel, in 357 Mag, it's promising. I've been able to find a few great loads, and also eliminate some powder-bullet combination's that a Taurus just loves.

As a matter of fact, it's working better than I had hoped. Most of the time, taking a practice from the rifle guys and applying it to a revolver flat doesn't work. Or at best, doesn't matter.

I have a snub-nose and will test that at some point. That will be a real shock if it works. But, test results have been shocking before. Working (so far) in a 6.5 inch revolver is a shock already.

Has anyone else tested this with their revolver(s)? If so, what were your results?

I'm not looking for a debate on why this isn't possible, because I have holes in targets that say it is. I'm looking for others with test results, one way or the other, as a sanity check. I guess what I'm asking is, what did the holes in your targets reveal? Gun, caliber, distance info is all helpful.

Thanks guys

P.S. The Ladder Test: Incremental Load Development Method is what I'm referring to. Info at: http://www.desertsharpshooters.com/manuals/incredload.pdf

I have a Ruger SS 6.5" Blackhawk...very accurate with almost any load that I use incl .38 Specials. However the barrel does lead up---using Aluminum GC's solves my problem. What type of shooting do you use yours for the most---paper puncing, plinking, or hunting? e

[41mag]

Many years ago I was shooting a load in a scoped Redhawk 44mag, that consistently grouped well enough at 100 yards to upset a LOT of rifle shooters. So when I go the chance to head to WI for a handgun only hunt I naturally loaded some up and headed to the range. Much to my surprise, I could hardly hold a group at all much less anything less than 2" even at 50yds.

I had also brought along my 41mag with iron sights along with press, powder, and all the other goodies to work up loads. Much to my shock I was easily grouping at 50yds with undeveloped loads while the standard in my 44 was not even patterning. I noted that the crimp was much more on the 44 loads than on the 41's so I loaded a few back up after adjusting the crimp just a tad. Bingo, first cylinder was a 2" group at 50. Just a tad bit more tweak, and there it was the typical one ragged hole group I was accustomed to.

Since then I have always tried to work up my loads in similar fashion. It is easier to do so, for me anyway, than driving back and forth only to find what I thought would shoot doesn't. I have a dedicated set of small presses, mounted on flat bar that easily accommodates this. I have also found that in most cases, with the combined neck tension, the crimp only needs to be tight enough to secure the bullet under recoil, much more can and does in my testing start to disrupt accuracy, and wear on case mouths.

It is VERY easy to keep everything constant with a batch of trimmed cases, and changing nothing but the powder charge in small increments. With my Uniflow, I simply break the stem down into 1/8 turns, Using the small drum, I can tweak it in pretty tight for loads ranging under 30grs. THen once I find something I like I simply record the setting and weigh it out when I get home for future use.

While I do not have near the experience that some on here have, I have loaded plenty of rounds for my revolvers to know that a bit too much crimp will distort accuracy from any of them. Usually when I set one up now for a particular bullet or weight, I make up a dummy for future use, so I can get close to or right back to where I had the seater and crimp set to.

Good luck with your endeavors, I am sure you will find many more good loads in going about it the way you are.

[357shooter]

Very cool. I use the OCW method to develop loads for my rifles and have thought of trying it with my pistols. Just never gotten around to it.

It would be a good test. I think the OCW and the approach I used are kissin' cousins.

[357shooter]

I have a Ruger SS 6.5" Blackhawk...very accurate with almost any load that I use incl .38 Specials. However the barrel does lead up---using Aluminum GC's solves my problem. What type of shooting do you use yours for the most---paper puncing, plinking, or hunting? eAlmost all paper punching and some Silhoutte (100 yard version). I have some great very accurate loads from other guns, and am really looking to verify Ladder Testing as a viable load development approach in a revolver.

The BH has already shown it can be very accurate, but that is secondary to the thread.

Since you mentioned it though, it didn't like 700X at all, one of the most accurate powders in the Taurus and a Rossi lever rifle. It does love Unique and early results, it matches what the Taurus likes in H110. But I'm not asking for good loads for the BH (in this thread).

Since I'm off-topic already though, the 358-429 Keith doesn't lead to affect accuracy. After 200 rounds there's barely a hint of lead at the forcing cone. It's removed within seconds with a brass brush/chore boy. The Lee 358-158-SWC TL leads after 10 rounds and looses accuracy at 50. Not good.

Have you developed loads using the Load Ladder and had either good or bad results?

[357shooter]

Many years ago I was shooting a load in a scoped Redhawk 44mag, that consistently grouped well enough at 100 yards to upset a LOT of rifle shooters. So when I go the chance to head to WI for a handgun only hunt I naturally loaded some up and headed to the range. Much to my surprise, I could hardly hold a group at all much less anything less than 2" even at 50yds.

I had also brought along my 41mag with iron sights along with press, powder, and all the other goodies to work up loads. Much to my shock I was easily grouping at 50yds with undeveloped loads while the standard in my 44 was not even patterning. I noted that the crimp was much more on the 44 loads than on the 41's so I loaded a few back up after adjusting the crimp just a tad. Bingo, first cylinder was a 2" group at 50. Just a tad bit more tweak, and there it was the typical one ragged hole group I was accustomed to.

Since then I have always tried to work up my loads in similar fashion. It is easier to do so, for me anyway, than driving back and forth only to find what I thought would shoot doesn't. I have a dedicated set of small presses, mounted on flat bar that easily accommodates this. I have also found that in most cases, with the combined neck tension, the crimp only needs to be tight enough to secure the bullet under recoil, much more can and does in my testing start to disrupt accuracy, and wear on case mouths.

It is VERY easy to keep everything constant with a batch of trimmed cases, and changing nothing but the powder charge in small increments. With my Uniflow, I simply break the stem down into 1/8 turns, Using the small drum, I can tweak it in pretty tight for loads ranging under 30grs. THen once I find something I like I simply record the setting and weigh it out when I get home for future use.

While I do not have near the experience that some on here have, I have loaded plenty of rounds for my revolvers to know that a bit too much crimp will distort accuracy from any of them. Usually when I set one up now for a particular bullet or weight, I make up a dummy for future use, so I can get close to or right back to where I had the seater and crimp set to.

Good luck with your endeavors, I am sure you will find many more good loads in going about it the way you are.

Thanks for the encouragement. I've found the crimp to be critical and work just as you describe.

[Wally]

Almost all paper punching and some Silhoutte (100 yard version). I have some great very accurate loads from other guns, and am really looking to verify Ladder Testing as a viable load development approach in a revolver.

The BH has already shown it can be very accurate, but that is secondary to the thread.

Since you mentioned it though, it didn't like 700X at all, one of the most accurate powders in the Taurus and a Rossi lever rifle. It does love Unique and early results, it matches what the Taurus likes in H110. But I'm not asking for good loads for the BH (in this thread).

Since I'm off-topic already though, the 358-429 Keith doesn't lead to affect accuracy. After 200 rounds there's barely a hint of lead at the forcing cone. It's removed within seconds with a brass brush/chore boy. The Lee 358-158-SWC TL leads after 10 rounds and looses accuracy at 50. Not good.

Have you developed loads using the Load Ladder and had either good or bad results?

I have not---I make up a load and try it--if it offers satisfactory results--I stay with it. I have had the very same results with the Lee 158 SWC-TL,...

I like using a RCBS 82026 124 grain RN-GC that I size to .359". I use a home made GC --very accurate and flat shooting. For plinking I like the Lee 105 SWC with 4.5 grains of Red Dot--is just below sonic at MV--very accurate. For Silhoutte shooting the 358156 is hard to beat--the GC gives you an accuracy edge. The

[44man]

Crimp is important. Anything more then folding brass to the bottom of the groove does nothing but ruin a boolit.
Softer boolits will not open a super tight crimp and it just sizes the boolit as it tries to go through.
All of the factory cast loads have very hard crimps to prevent boolit movement under recoil but they also have hard boolits. Most have too much and it does not help hold boolits. We have had .454 boolits pull and tie up guns even though crimps were full profile and super hard. Once boolit weight for the caliber and recoil is exceeded, nothing will hold them in.
Inspecting fired brass from these shows the crimp opened fully.
Brass from soft boolits will still show some crimp left.
Accuracy changes with crimp changes shows the case tension is wrong and you are making the crimp do the work that it can't do. The culprit is boolits too soft for case tension.
Ladder testing!!!! It works but not at 25 yards. What will you look for? 1/2"?
I don't like short barrels but in truth they will shoot very far with accuracy. Just extend the range for ladder tests.

[357shooter]

Crimp is important. Anything more then folding brass to the bottom of the groove does nothing but ruin a boolit.
Softer boolits will not open a super tight crimp and it just sizes the boolit as it tries to go through.
All of the factory cast loads have very hard crimps to prevent boolit movement under recoil but they also have hard boolits. Most have too much and it does not help hold boolits. We have had .454 boolits pull and tie up guns even though crimps were full profile and super hard. Once boolit weight for the caliber and recoil is exceeded, nothing will hold them in.
Inspecting fired brass from these shows the crimp opened fully.
Brass from soft boolits will still show some crimp left.
Accuracy changes with crimp changes shows the case tension is wrong and you are making the crimp do the work that it can't do. The culprit is boolits too soft for case tension.
Ladder testing!!!! It works but not at 25 yards. What will you look for? 1/2"?
I don't like short barrels but in truth they will shoot very far with accuracy. Just extend the range for ladder tests.
Thanks for the helpful feedback. The main reason for the 25 yards is, that's where I can shoot, except for an occasional Silhoutte event, there's nothing available. The outdoor range for those events is private, with a limited membership and a long waiting list to join. It turns out that at least some other shooters have the same problem, so they hopefully get useful info from the tests that I do.

So far, ladder testing at 25 yards seems to be working. Maybe not with the clarity in results at long range. But working much better than I thought it would.

I fully expected it to fail, just like the tests I did for Pressure and Alloy Matching for Accuracy. In a 357 revolver, it was absolutely useless.

[44man]

That really, really is a problem. No place to shoot and limits when you have a place. It is just so hard to test and learn. You load a few and it doesn't work like you want so you keep trying it over and over with long waits to shoot and short distances.
I fully understand the plight. I have been lucky all my life because I had places to shoot, even farmers fields. I have my own 200 yard range and can go to a friends where we can get 1000 yards.
Even back in Ohio, I had vast distances to shoot and many places without going to a range. I had no idea what a rifle range was. I made my own.
Your problems are not failures. They are because you can't read anything at close range and might reject something that does really work.

[357shooter]

The short range is a real limitation. But it's still a blast. The majority of range shooters put as many rounds through their semi-auto pistol as they can, as fast as possible, and are happy with a 10 inch grouping at 7-10 yards. It's fun to pull the target up from 25 and have a nice tight group.

The biggest problem is their bullets keep hitting my target. I've put 20 rounds down the range and had 35-40 holes of various sizes, all of them round. You can see the paper move when the guy next to you fires. LOL

[MT Gianni]

Are you firing all shots out of the same hole? Are you concerned about any accuracy loss of different throats in your cylinder?
It is a good article, I think I would label my cylinder and fire all out of one hole, then tune the gun if it needs it.

[357shooter]

Are you firing all shots out of the same hole? Are you concerned about any accuracy loss of different throats in your cylinder?
It is a good article, I think I would label my cylinder and fire all out of one hole, then tune the gun if it needs it.
Not really concerned about the differences in the throats at this point. I've gotten less than 1 inch groups with the iron sights, using the full cylinder. That's good with me.

The thread is really looking for others that have used the Ladder Test with revolvers, and how it worked out for them. Not about tuning my gun or finding a load for the Blackhawk.

I should have worded the title and the original post to be more clear. Maybe I can change it...

[44man]

1" at 25 with open sights is GOOD! You might try the ladder and see. But you might have a hard time finding better.
I would be interested in your results.

[357shooter]

1" at 25 with open sights is GOOD! You might try the ladder and see. But you might have a hard time finding better.
I would be interested in your results.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll post updates as I test this out.

I do have a soft spot for the basic open iron sights. For now the scope and red dot are sitting on the bench.

[41mag]

357man,

Your right it is a hoot to shoot tight groups even if it isn't at extended ranges, especially when your in the experimental phase of development.

I mentioned above that I usually haul my gear out to the range, which is true about 90% of the time. I am fortunate to have a place in the country on which I can stretch out my rifles, bow, and handguns to at least 350 measured yards and up to about 500 depending on how I set things up. The daughter and I built us a shooting range up there years ago and we measured off the 1,2, & 300yd markers by hand. IT was a fun project that we both still enjoy using today.

Here of late however I have been a bit lazy or actually more inclined to not sit and sweat in the 100+ temps we cannot seem to shake. I don't mind a bit of sweat, but dripping off the brim of my ball cap is a bit much. So I have simply been loading assorted charge weights in 5 round batches for the 454, so I can slip into the club range, shoot, gather targets, and head to the house.

I have been VERY fortunate to have help from some of the members here in putting together my boolits, with out them, and their help, I would still be just considering casting. I just purchased a second hand micrometer measure which I figure will work perfectly for the ball powders I use the most. Hopefully this will be a fine addition to the range box and will allow me to tune my loads up right.

As for the open sights, yep on a handgun at least, thats what I prefer myself. If I cannot figure out how to shoot with them, then I might as well not be shooting that particular firearm. I personally like the fine target bead and V-notch sights the best, but have learned that you cannot always have your your cake and ice cream to go with it. The Raging Bull, I feel would be an awesome handgun if they had a means by which to swap out the factory sights to something a bit finer or even something different. But I ain't complaining too much, it still shoots better than I can hold it.

Looking forward to more of your results, and hopefully will have something of my own to add later.

[357shooter]

41mag: That is a great shooting range you have set up. The outdoor private range I mentioned earlier doesn't go to 300 yards. It's in an area that's very hilly and the needed to move a bunch of dirt to get 100 and 200 yard ranges.

So how long of a drive from Atlanta are you? :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[tomf52]

What is ladder testing?

[fourarmed]

It is a method for finding a powder charge which is insensitive to small variations. You pick a bullet and a powder, then load a series of rounds beginning with a light charge and working up to a heavy charge. Then you shoot them on paper, recording the impact point and powder charge of each round. The impact points will move up or down the paper as the powder charge increases. If several rounds hit in about the same point, then the optimum powder charge is in that neighborhood.

[Jal5]

Can someone post an example of the ladder test from an actual trial? Include how you interpreted the results. I am much more of a visual type person...a picture is worth 1000 words.

Joe

[garym1a2]

The ladder test looks very good, I must try it on my next rifle load devlopment. I have always been of the old way. Load 10 and each charge till I get good velocity and group size. It took forever.


I decided to do some ladder testing and see how it works out. I realize there are objections to doing this, but I had to try it out. I'm looking for handloaders that have tried ladder testing, in their revolver, to see how it worked. Is this a sound practice for finding loads for a revolver?

So far, using a Blackhawk with a 6.5 inch barrel, in 357 Mag, it's promising. I've been able to find a few great loads, and also eliminate some powder-bullet combination's that a Taurus just loves.

As a matter of fact, it's working better than I had hoped. Most of the time, taking a practice from the rifle guys and applying it to a revolver flat doesn't work. Or at best, doesn't matter.

I have a snub-nose and will test that at some point. That will be a real shock if it works. But, test results have been shocking before. Working (so far) in a 6.5 inch revolver is a shock already.

Has anyone else attempted ladder testing with their revolver(s)? If so, what were your results?

I'm not looking for a debate on why this isn't possible, because I have holes in targets that say it is. I'm looking for others with test results, one way or the other, as a sanity check. I guess what I'm asking is, what did the holes in your targets reveal? Gun, caliber, distance info is all helpful.

Thanks guys

P.S. The Ladder Test: Incremental Load Development Method is what I'm referring to. Info at: http://www.desertsharpshooters.com/manuals/incredload.pdf

[357shooter]

What is ladder testing?
Here is the link that best describes the testing and approach that I'm talking about: http://www.desertsharpshooters.com/manuals/incredload.pdf

[357shooter]

Can someone post an example of the ladder test from an actual trial? Include how you interpreted the results. I am much more of a visual type person...a picture is worth 1000 words.

JoeI do have some early results. The best single picture that I have, to answer your question is below. I shot these off a Big Boy rest at 25 yards, with open iron sights. In my case the bullets don't just walk up the target, at times there's a horizontal spread. Sometimes bullets hit lower. I think that's due to how revolvers kinda work, but that's not the topic.

The idea is to find two very close shots that are sequentially numbered. I put the target at 25 yards, fired round 1, pulled it up and marked it, than put it back to 25 yards for round 2.

This is a ladder test with a 168 SWC using H110 in a Ruger Blackhawk with a 6.5 inch barrel:

http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/ab341/prgallo/H110-168-Ladder-1.jpg

At four o'clock, just inside the 10 ring are 7 and 8. It appears to me there is 1 sweet spot at 13.4 to 13.7 grains.

Today I loaded up 13.5, and it is a great load. I need to shoot it more and take some pictures. But I'm good with this load.

I've gotten 3 other loads so far, using this approach. Some are close to Skeeter Skelton's loads. The same 168 SWC is awesome with 5.4 grains of Unique. A 180 SWC has 2 sweet spots. 5.1 grains of Unique and 5.7 grains of Unique.

More testing is underway. It just take some time. I'm very early in testing this out, but it's been working so far.

[MT Gianni]

Groups look great. I think that your revolver has no issues with throats and or line-up. I put the idea out for those who's groups get a flier or are wide.

[357shooter]

In that ladder test, each charge was 1 round only. The purpose was to find the sweet spot. I do have 1 photo of a Unique 5.4 group, rested at 25 yards. The same iron sights. This is a load developed using a ladder test.

The target is smaller than it looks, it is from a double bullseye target. I noted the one I pulled. It seems that sandbag rested is helpful (don't have a ransom), but not perfect. The four shot grouping is less than 1 inch, center to center:

http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/ab341/prgallo/158SWCUnique5-4.jpg

[Harter66]

I have always used a start low work up method to find a loads that works every revolver I have throws a round from 1 chamber ,in 1 case it is different chambers w/different projectiles. Only 1 of 3 will shoot maximum loads for its cartridge.

I never could grasp the function of the 1 load 1 shot ladder. I load w/the idea that every gun will save me or someone else or put meat on the table. With that I load 6 of each load, 5 for autos,and discount the flier. Unless I know in advance which chamber is the flier. Most pistols have 2.0gn load window up to maybe 4. Although H110 in the 45 Colts is a ready exception. W/10 loads in even half gn steps will get me close or into a 1gn window.

My reasoning for the above is brought on by a rifle that just gave me fits. That's a whole different saga. Short version .5gn in case wt,capacity,powder,or bullet will make a 5 shot clover spread out to not even on the paper.

[357shooter]

Harter66: Hi, your approach is the more traditional one. It's how I've developed many loads too. I started this thread to discuss a specific alternative taken from the rifle guys. Ladder Testing. The details of ladder testing is in a link in my original post if you are interested. So far not many have tried it in handguns.

It is working better than I expected. More often than not, a best practice in rifle's adds nothing or just doesn't work for handguns. In this case, I'm getting great accurate loads with a minimum of time and effort. Now I spend more time shooting great loads instead of looking for great loads. If this continues to work out, it's a effective way to "verify" a new batch of powder or a primer change to see if it needs a different powder charge. Of course, for a new powder it promises to be highly effective for working up loads.

I have some other results, with a more detailed explanation documented in the blog link in my signature.

Give it a try if you are interested, let us know how it works out, with all the relevant details.

[Machado]

Since I'm off-topic already though, the 358-429 Keith doesn't lead to affect accuracy. After 200 rounds there's barely a hint of lead at the forcing cone. It's removed within seconds with a brass brush/chore boy. The Lee 358-158-SWC TL leads after 10 rounds and looses accuracy at 50. Not good.

357shooter:
For many years I have exclusively used Lyman's #358429 + 10,0 gr of Blue Dot in my .357s. I cast them in a hardness of BHN ~18, size them to .357" and lube them with my own concoction of beeswax, beef tallow, carnaúba wax, chassis grease and powdered graphite. No complaints at all. They shoot very well in my 10" Contender, 8 3/8" S&W 686, an old 4" S&W M-19, an even older Ruger Speed Six and in my Rossi .357 levergun. No discernible leading at all. My mould is an old 4-hole Lyman and I cast thousands at a time, to guarantee uniformity. I used this method to choose this powder charge. The option was more than acceptable (for metallic silhouette) and I haven't changed. At any rate, I don't have that many options here as you do in the US.
Antonio

[357shooter]

Since I'm off-topic already though, the 358-429 Keith doesn't lead to affect accuracy. After 200 rounds there's barely a hint of lead at the forcing cone. It's removed within seconds with a brass brush/chore boy. The Lee 358-158-SWC TL leads after 10 rounds and looses accuracy at 50. Not good.

357shooter:
For many years I have exclusively used Lyman's #358429 + 10,0 gr of Blue Dot in my .357s. I cast them in a hardness of BHN ~18, size them to .357" and lube them with my own concoction of beeswax, beef tallow, carnaúba wax, chassis grease and powdered graphite. No complaints at all. They shoot very well in my 10" Contender, 8 3/8" S&W 686, an old 4" S&W M-19, an even older Ruger Speed Six and in my Rossi .357 levergun. No discernible leading at all. My mould is an old 4-hole Lyman and I cast thousands at a time, to guarantee uniformity. I used this method to choose this powder charge. The option was more than acceptable (for metallic silhouette) and I haven't changed. At any rate, I don't have that many options here as you do in the US.
AntonioThose are my 2 favorite moulds. The TL-358-158-SWC does lead, but I think it's solved.

So far it's working, with LLA applied 2 different ways:

1) Dipping the bullet into LLA ala the Ranch Dog method: http://www.ranchdogoutdoors.com/Tips/Alox/

This is slow and a pain, but leaves a very clean bore.

2) What I'll call Extreme LLA (this is not the standard or accepted way to use LLA). 2 medium coats of pure liquid alox, finished of with mica. Let them dry between coats. This is a very heavy coating and goes way beyond what is usually needed. It's working. Since I have the Dillon quick dis-assembly dies it's easy to keep to clean them and prevent the Alox from building up. It may not work for everyone and may gunk things up.

The normal application of LLA will show leading in the Blackhawk after 10 rounds, and affects accuracy in my gun at about 40.

Both of these approaches show zero leading after 50 rounds, loaded with 13.5 grains of H110. That's as far as I've gotten with testing. But it's working. This is the only bullet I've found to outshoot the 358-429. Not by much, but it does outshoot it.

Guess I was off topic too.

Added later: I get more accurate results with soft BHN 8 bullets, including magnum loads.

[357shooter]

Using a Ladder Test with a 180 grain Keith (from a lapped mould) produced 2 sweet spots. Here a target shot off-hand, unsupported, 25 yards and iron sights. It's 5.1 grains of Unigue.

So far developing loads using a Ladder Test is working just fine. That's for a 6.5 inch 357 magnum, Blackhawk. It may not work for every handgun, but it does or mine:

http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/ab341/prgallo/KeithUnique5-1offhand.jpg

[Machado]

.357shooter:
This is a target I recently punched shooting L356429's ahead of 5 grains of the local powder CBC207 out of my S&W K-38. I hope the photo comes out.
Antonio

[357shooter]

.357shooter:
This is a target I recently punched shooting L356429's ahead of 5 grains of the local powder CBC207 out of my S&W K-38. I hope the photo comes out.
AntonioIt came out just great! Nice, that is an awesome group. I can't make out the notes on it. Distance, off-hand or rested, iron-sights or other? We need details, cause we are nosy.

[MT Gianni]

It came out just great! Nice, that is an awesome group. I can't make out the notes on it. Distance, off-hand or rested, iron-sights or other? We need details, cause we are nosy.

I put my glasses on. It is the same thing only written with a pencil? K-38 is on a different line.
10 tiros=10 shots? Nice shooting Machado.

[Machado]

Distance 25 meters, two-handed grip resting on sandbags, had taken my heart medications 3 1/2 hours earlier, heart frequency was down to 62 BPM at the time, range in the shade. Yes, 10 tiros is Portuguese for 10 shots. This particular K-38 and myself have been friends for over 30 years, I "sweetened" its action using an old-fashioned hard leather straight razor strop and a lot of elbow grease. I feel it was born to shoot cast bullets. Thank you for your comments.

[Jal5]

Nice shooting! Looks like you have a winning combo there.

Joe

[geargnasher]

357Shooter, I'd like to commend you on your efforts here. I've been following your thread and I, like most others, never thought about doing a ladder workup with revolvers, might be a good thing since there are so many more variables to a revolver than a bolt-action rifle, and finding the accuracy window of a particular powder would be a fine way to optimize what you have to work with.

I always cringe when I see sweeping conclusions drawn from one-shot groups, or even five shot groups, but ultimately you're the one behind the gun, you know how it shoots, and you can tell by feel for the most part whether the apparent tightening is real or just a factor of group dispersion. I've done a lot of testing with charge weights, burn rate, and boolit weight to get POA/POI to jive with fixed-sight revolvers, but most of the time accuracy is pretty consistent no matter what combination I use, although guns do show certain powder preference with certain boolits. When I say consistent, I only have one revolver that I have cared to tweak to give consistent, cylinder-after-cylinder 1" accuracy at 25 yards (and not much more at 100) so the ladder approach might help my other guns some. Ultimately though, if it hits a beer can at 25 yards it's good enough for a handgun in my book and the load development stops!

Gear

[357shooter]

geargnasher: Thanks for the positive comments.

The ladder loads have produced consistent, tight groups in a 6.5 inch Blackhawk. More results are on the way.

Results from the 38 Special snub-nose are coming too. It was there so I had to try it.