Ladder testing

[ILostMyGoat]

Hey everyone, I’m pretty new to casting and am curious what y’all do for ladder testing. I’ve reloaded a bit and understand the ladder there but what do you do for cast? How many do you shoot before changing alloy, lube, GC, PC, mold, etc etc… and how does this play into load development? Thanks guys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryanmattes]

Personally I do a ladder for any change. So, say, I have a new mold I want to try out, I'll do a ladder lubed and a ladder coated. Depending on what you're loading for ladders can be big or small, but I usually load 5-10 rounds at each charge weight, in 4-6 steps from min to just shy of max. Everything else the same: headstamp, primer, powder type, bullet, coated/lubed, etc.

Below are several ladders for 45 ACP and 40 S&W, 10 rounds per charge.

I mark them with a paint pen or nail polish or sharpie, and I put a similar marking in my book and on the target, so I can keep track of which is which (at the top-left of the page it says "I white" to match a single white stripe on the bullet). https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/87aa78f8ef473690833d6af9a3a701d8.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/cb3e9e502d3e592b0eb812f05e7c41be.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/3bfed91e298474f575c6fc75da392193.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[ILostMyGoat]

Personally I do a ladder for any change. So, say, I have a new mold I want to try out, I'll do a ladder lubed and a ladder coated. Depending on what you're loading for ladders can be big or small, but I usually load 5-10 rounds at each charge weight, in 4-6 steps from min to just shy of max. Everything else the same: headstamp, primer, powder type, bullet, coated/lubed, etc.

Below are several ladders for 45 ACP and 40 S&W, 10 rounds per charge.

I mark them with a paint pen or nail polish or sharpie, and I put a similar marking in my book and on the target, so I can keep track of which is which (at the top-left of the page it says "I white" to match a single white stripe on the bullet). https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/87aa78f8ef473690833d6af9a3a701d8.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/cb3e9e502d3e592b0eb812f05e7c41be.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220329/3bfed91e298474f575c6fc75da392193.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Ok I like the marking method. How many rounds do you need to accurately assess leading?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M-Tecs]

I don't for anything shot under 300 yards. For long range I used to do ladder testing for all competition firearms. Now I mostly just use the chrono and how it holds the waterline at 600 or 1,000 yards.

Last time I did a ladder test I use the modified method listed here https://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/long-range-load-development/#:~:text=Long-Range%20Load%20Development%20Ladder%20Testing%20at %201000%20Yards,which%20deliver%20minimal%20vertic al%20dispersion%20at%20long%20range.

Lots here do ladder testing for short yardage cast loads. I am not sure I understand their methods. Hopefully they will weight in and detail the why's of their methods.

[ILostMyGoat]

I don't for anything shot under 300 yards. For long range I used to do ladder testing for all competition firearms. Mostly now I just use the chrono. When I do a ladder test I use the modified method listed here https://www.6mmbr.com/laddertest.html#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20ladder%20t est%3F%20A%20ladder%20test,consecutive%20shots%20s howing%20similar%20points%20of%20impact%20%28POI%2 9.

Lots here do ladder testing for short yardage cast loads. I am not sure I understand their methods. Hopefully they will weight in and detail their methods.

Ya I’ve never done ladder tests for anything besides consistency and accuracy. “Ladder test” might be the wrong words. What I mean is a test of “does this mould work in my gun?” “Do I have excessive leading?” Is my lube a good choice? … things along those lines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charlie b]

Yep. Same here. Rifles can be picky about the load so a series is done to find what works best. FWIW, cast bullets for me have been far less finicky than jacketed.

For pistol I only work up a load if I am going to be near max. Since I am usually a bit far from that I just choose a load and shoot it. I confirm performance with a chronograph. 9mm has been the only pistol cartridge to make me try several loads.

[ryanmattes]

Ok I like the marking method. How many rounds do you need to accurately assess leading?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk10 rounds is usually enough in a pistol or revolver. I usually shoot 1, watching for pressure signs, check the barrel, shoot 3, watch the cycle in a semi-auto, check the barrel, then shoot the remaining 6. If there's no signs of leading then they're probably ok to load 100, and I'll find out when I clean after the range if there's a minor lead build up.

So far, .001-.002 over barrel diameter with lube or coating has been pretty good at consistency and no leading. I'll do a ladder at each size, like .356, .357, .358 for 9mm or .38/.357, or .452, .453, .454 for .45. I'll end up going to the range with 100 rounds and 10 targets, and go home with a pretty good idea of what the right load is.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[ABJ]

For rifles and off the bench I do a ladder test mostly for accuracy. Everything is identical except the charge weight. I foul the barrel with 3 shots, let cool then test. ONLY change one thing at a time so you know what made the difference. Once I have the most accurate load, set sights or scope based on how I am using it. Hunting guns are zeroed to the cold barrel shot. On target guns where I'm shooting a string of ten the most accurate 3 shot group may not be the most accurate 10 shot group. Once I identify the best 2 or 3 loads I shoot a string of ten of each load for total group size.
I do have a chrony but don't use it much. I have seen low SD and ES not shoot accurately and vise versa. Good info to have but the target is all that matters.
Tony

[Bigslug]

A single shot of each powder charge over the chronograph; each round typically .2 of a grain hotter than the one before for a .308 or .30-06 family-sized case. Something tiny like a Hornet might be dropped down to .1; a big African magnum might go as much as .5. Look at the data afterwards for the flat spots in the progression where the velocity has the lowest spread over what is usually about three shots. Accuracy usually lives in the middle of those flat spots, which I revisit next time out. Saves a lot of time, bullets, and powder.

For handguns, I'll usually load ten at each step for an autoloader, or two cylinders full for a wheelgun. Go with the tightest numbers over the chrono within a velocity range that solves whatever problem I'm sorting out with that load.

CHRONOGRAPH = INDISPENSIBLE.

[dverna]

IMO ladder testing has not been proven for the kinds of guns most of us use. or the shooting we do. Most of the stuff written about it is from guys using bench or precision rifles. Most are shooting long range.

I have read a lot about it, and it makes very little sense to me. Let me explain. First you need about a 300 yard range and that is not practical for most of us. But let's focus on the test itself...which is typically one bullet fired at each charge weight. Ever seen the dispersion of identically loaded rounds? Even at 100 yards, a decent load in a factory rifle will not put all the bullets into one hole. Yet we are to believe that one shot tells us how much vertical effect is caused by a .2 gr change in charge weight. If that comes from a charge that is a 2 MOA load are we are to assume it is the midpoint of the 2 MOA group? What if it is from the fringe? What if that POI is from a 1 MOA load? One shot tells us (well at least me) nothing.

Then there is the velocity variable. Shoot the identical load over a chronograph 10 times and look at the variation shot to shot. How do you know the test ladder loads are at the average, top or bottom of the ES velocity range for each load?

But the real "deal killer" for me is no one has ever (to my knowledge) proven ladder testing is repeatable. By that I mean, performed the same ladder test twice to see if they got the same results. My gut tells me it is not repeatable. There are too many variables at play.

For the vast majority of people, shooting groups is the way to go. And for most, that means shooting at 100 yards.

Ladder testing cast bullets makes even less sense to me than for jacketed bullets. At least with jacketed bullets the bullets are relatively consistent.

I have a new varmint rifle to wring out this spring and I may try the ladder testing protocol on the 200 yard range I have. I have a jug of powder I have never used before so it will be a good test. And I will do it twice for ****s and giggles to see if it is repeatable.

[Larry Gibson]

Here we have another example, causing confusion, of inappropriate terminology either nonintentional or otherwise. We see this often on this forum with terms which are apparently made up or of some local use which are not used in firearm or ballistic usage. For example; the term “bullet” is oft verbalized as “head”, “pill”, “tip” and [not intending to stab a sacred cow] “boolet”. We can generally surmise what is intended by the rest of the post. However, sometimes not.

So, what does the OP mean by “ladder testing”?

Would seem that ryanmattes thinks the OP is referring to “incremental” testing. ILostMyGoat, the OP, seems to concur and admits “ladder testing” may have been a poor choice of words.M-Tecs and Bigslug are discussing the Audette Ladder Test as correctly done. ABJ, apparently is using the term “ladder test” for what he is really doing is an “incremental test”.
Which is it, an incremental test, or a ladder test?

Is there a difference between the two?

Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two.

An incremental test is to load a cartridge with incrementally increasing weights [may be .2, .3, .5 or even 1.0 gr increments depending on the cartridge volume and burn rate of the powder used] from a “start” load to a “maximum” load. That’s the old way, tried and true. It used to be, and still is by many, called the Incremental Load Development Method or ILDM for short. The problem with the misuse of the term “ladder test” is when it is applied to this method of load testing.
Unfortunately, that term (IDLM) is also used for the Creighton Audette Ladder Test, ALT for short. Audette’s article describing his Ladder Test method and why and when it should be used was first published in the 1997 Precision Shooting Annual. It may have also been published in a gun magazine earlier. There also is an excellent discussion and description by Randolph Constantine which I also believe was published in the Precision Shooting Annual.

Audette was a long range match shooter as was Constantine. They used precision rifles with match load components capable of sub moa accuracy. The minimum Audette recommended for testing using his “Ladder” method was 300 yards. He did most of his testing at 600 and 1000 yards. It should be noted that Audette, when developing his “ladder” test method was loading his 300 magnum cartridge using an electronic measuring scale. The machine measured charges using IMR 4350 were up to 1.5 gr variation (if I remember correctly). Audette tested to see if there was a load with a +/- 1.5 gr variation would “group” with sufficient accuracy for match shooting at known range long distances. His testing for that resulted in his “Ladder Test” method.
Audette’s “Ladder Test” method was never intended to be a method for initial load development at shorter ranges. It was developed to perfect a load for match shooting at a specific long ranges. The problem with load testing at shorter ranges of 50 or 100 yards or even 200 yards is there is no way to know the cone of fire (area of shot distribution of the group size) with loads of unproven ability. Audette and Constantine used know loads with match bullets in very accurate rifles. Even then they knew a “ladder test” at such short ranges would be difficult if not impossible to interpret.

Thus, what most who use incremental charge increases from a start load to a maximum load should be calling that method is an “incremental load development method” ILDM] test. They should not be calling it a “ladder test” because it is not. Using the appropriate terminology would help avoid unnecessary confusion.

BTW; Those who are attempting to use an Audette Ladder Test [ALT] to “develop” a load are chasing their tail. I know as I’ve chased my own tail on that one numerous times. I no longer do.

[M-Tecs]

Here we have another example, causing confusion, of inappropriate terminology either nonintentional or otherwise. We see this often on this forum with terms which are apparently made up or of some local use which are not used in firearm or ballistic usage. For example; the term “bullet” is oft verbalized as “head”, “pill”, “tip” and [not intending to stab a sacred cow] “boolet”. We can generally surmise what is intended by the rest of the post. However, sometimes not.

So, what does the OP mean by “ladder testing”?

Would seem that ryanmattes thinks the OP is referring to “incremental” testing. ILostMyGoat, the OP, seems to concur and admits “ladder testing” may have been a poor choice of words.M-Tecs and Bigslug are discussing the Audette Ladder Test as correctly done. ABJ, apparently is using the term “ladder test” for what he is really doing is an “incremental test”.
Which is it, an incremental test, or a ladder test?

Is there a difference between the two?

Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two.

An incremental test is to load a cartridge with incrementally increasing weights [may be .2, .3, .5 or even 1.0 gr increments depending on the cartridge volume and burn rate of the powder used] from a “start” load to a “maximum” load. That’s the old way, tried and true. It used to be, and still is by many, called the Incremental Load Development Method or ILDM for short. The problem with the misuse of the term “ladder test” is when it is applied to this method of load testing.
Unfortunately, that term (IDLM) is also used for the Creighton Audette Ladder Test, ALT for short. Audette’s article describing his Ladder Test method and why and when it should be used was first published in the 1997 Precision Shooting Annual. It may have also been published in a gun magazine earlier. There also is an excellent discussion and description by Randolph Constantine which I also believe was published in the Precision Shooting Annual.

Audette was a long range match shooter as was Constantine. They used precision rifles with match load components capable of sub moa accuracy. The minimum Audette recommended for testing using his “Ladder” method was 300 yards. He did most of his testing at 600 and 1000 yards. It should be noted that Audette, when developing his “ladder” test method was loading his 300 magnum cartridge using an electronic measuring scale. The machine measured charges using IMR 4350 were up to 1.5 gr variation (if I remember correctly). Audette tested to see if there was a load with a +/- 1.5 gr variation would “group” with sufficient accuracy for match shooting at known range long distances. His testing for that resulted in his “Ladder Test” method.
Audette’s “Ladder Test” method was never intended to be a method for initial load development at shorter ranges. It was developed to perfect a load for match shooting at a specific long ranges. The problem with load testing at shorter ranges of 50 or 100 yards or even 200 yards is there is no way to know the cone of fire (area of shot distribution of the group size) with loads of unproven ability. Audette and Constantine used know loads with match bullets in very accurate rifles. Even then they knew a “ladder test” at such short ranges would be difficult if not impossible to interpret.

Thus, what most who use incremental charge increases from a start load to a maximum load should be calling that method is an “incremental load development method” ILDM] test. They should not be calling it a “ladder test” because it is not. Using the appropriate terminology would help avoid unnecessary confusion.

BTW; Those who are attempting to use an Audette Ladder Test [ALT] to “develop” a load are chasing their tail. I know as I’ve chased my own tail on that one numerous times. I no longer do.

Larry

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I admit I was highly confused by what some are calling "ladder testing". Like you I have chased my tail on using the ALT and I have also stopped using it. Currently I mostly use the chrono and how the loads holds the waterline at 600 or 1,000 yards.

[Bigslug]

But the real "deal killer" for me is no one has ever (to my knowledge) proven ladder testing is repeatable. By that I mean, performed the same ladder test twice to see if they got the same results. My gut tells me it is not repeatable. There are too many variables at play.


The way I've come to look at it is that we're seeking the places where that inevitable variability matters LEAST.

Your cartridges are going to be similar, but not exactly the same. Powder charge, how the charge is laying in the case, flash hole and primer pocket variability - - -how far do you want to travel down this nearly endless list?

When you have three "rungs on the ladder" where the velocity pretty much stays put across three incremental charge increases, what you have found is a spot where (when you leave the painstaking load development process and get into mass producing it) an inadvertent increase or decrease of 0.1 grain of charge weight, or a weird fluctuation in your brass is less likely to give you a major departure from your normal group.

The proof of it is when you find that flat spot, you go back with ten to twenty shots all loaded with the same charge in the middle of it and getting SD's of under 10 fps for the entire string. If you don't get your phenomenal accuracy out of that (you usually do), you're at least probably within the zone you want to play.

[ABJ]

Larry, I don't mind being corrected for using the wrong terminology, that is how we all learn. Your explanation is spot on and thank you for posting it. I learned reloading from WWll veteran's mostly and that is where I learned the term, "ladder Test" to describe ILDM. I'm not sure they knew the difference either. Either way I always appreciate your detailed explanations.
Tony

[Larry Gibson]

ABJ

I've certainly used the wrong terminology over the years and also appreciated being "corrected". It is indeed how we all learn. There is enough overlap and perhaps double meaning without us unintentionally adding more confusion to it. For example; what is a "throat"? Is it the throat, the freebore, the leade, the ball seat....? Then is it applicable to both rifle and revolver "throats"? Lot's of confusion over that one.......

[gwpercle]

Just being an old school non technical reloader ... when I first heard ladder testing I thought ..."going from the bottom to the top" it wasn't hard to figure out and a easy term to remember .
Incremental Load Development Testing ( ILDT ) I will have to write down because I might forget a word ... Kind of a two dollar term for a 10 cent word ... ladder .
I can see using the term ladder test ...it doesn't insult my intelligence .

The proper spelling of words does need to have more attention paid to that subject ... some folks spell like they didn't pass the 6 th Grade .
Gary

[ABJ]

ABJ

I've certainly used the wrong terminology over the years and also appreciated being "corrected". It is indeed how we all learn. There is enough overlap and perhaps double meaning without us unintentionally adding more confusion to it. For example; what is a "throat"? Is it the throat, the freebore, the leade, the ball seat....? Then is it applicable to both rifle and revolver "throats"? Lot's of confusion over that one.......

I am so glad you brought up the second part. To keep from going off topic on leade/throat etc... I'll start a new thread and would welcome a definition of each especially "ball seat"
Tony

[Larry Gibson]

Just being an old school non technical reloader ... when I first heard ladder testing I thought ..."going from the bottom to the top" it wasn't hard to figure out and a easy term to remember .
Incremental Load Development Testing ( ILDT ) I will have to write down because I might forget a word ... Kind of a two dollar term for a 10 cent word ... ladder .
I can see using the term ladder test ...it doesn't insult my intelligence .

The proper spelling of words does need to have more attention paid to that subject ... some folks spell like they didn't pass the 6 th Grade .
Gary

But does the writer of what you're reading mean just one shot for each rung of that "ladder" attempting to see if any group close together? Or does the writer mean a series of shots for each rung of that "ladder" to see which rung shows the most consistency and accuracy? Two different meanings and for many, confusing. For the "non technical" just call the first a "ladder test" and the second an "incremental test".

No disagreement on the spelling......

[Larry Gibson]

I am so glad you brought up the second part. To keep from going off topic on leade/throat etc... I'll start a new thread and would welcome a definition of each especially "ball seat"
Tony

Should prove an interesting thread....

[ABJ]

Should prove an interesting thread....

It's posted so chime in anytime.
Tony

[ILostMyGoat]

This is all great stuff. Thanks for the inputs. To clarify I’m not looking for load development stuff, I’m looking for what methods y’all use to determine what your fire arm likes best, specifically for the cast boolit. How do you determine if PC or Lube is better for it? What about GC or no GC? What size does it like best? Thanks guys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ILostMyGoat]

A single shot of each powder charge over the chronograph; each round typically .2 of a grain hotter than the one before for a .308 or .30-06 family-sized case. Something tiny like a Hornet might be dropped down to .1; a big African magnum might go as much as .5. Look at the data afterwards for the flat spots in the progression where the velocity has the lowest spread over what is usually about three shots. Accuracy usually lives in the middle of those flat spots, which I revisit next time out. Saves a lot of time, bullets, and powder.

For handguns, I'll usually load ten at each step for an autoloader, or two cylinders full for a wheelgun. Go with the tightest numbers over the chrono within a velocity range that solves whatever problem I'm sorting out with that load.

CHRONOGRAPH = INDISPENSIBLE.

I’m debating about a chronograph and haven’t been able to justify it. Do you recommend it that much? Are you able to take that number and caliber and plug it into a calculator of some sort to determine the ballistics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryanmattes]

This is all great stuff. Thanks for the inputs. To clarify I’m not looking for load development stuff, I’m looking for what methods y’all use to determine what your fire arm likes best, specifically for the cast boolit. How do you determine if PC or Lube is better for it? What about GC or no GC? What size does it like best? Thanks guys


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIncremental load development testing. How else would you do it, except try it and see? That means loading both ways and doing a side-by-side comparison.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[M-Tecs]

Accuracy is dependent on many factors. Low velocity spreads don't necessarily equal tight groups particular at short yardage. For .223/308 class cartridges (with full power jacketed) under 300 yards is what I consider short yardage. For longer range like 1,000 yards inconsistent velocity does equal elevation issues.

That being said I do find a chrono one of the most beneficial tools you can own for accurate load development just don't get caught up in the belief a low SD equals good groups. I have lots of loads with very low SD's at don't group well.

[ILostMyGoat]

Incremental load development testing. How else would you do it, except try it and see? That means loading both ways and doing a side-by-side comparison.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Thanks! I’ve seen y’all doing 5 hour casting sessions and making tons of the exact same thing and I’m not to that point. This ^ is exactly what I thought I should and will do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryanmattes]

Well, you can cast all day and make 30lbs of bullets, but you don't have to do the same thing with all of them. From those you can size groups to incremental diameters, and for each diameter you can do sets with different lubes, different coatings, etc.

Just make sure you separate the different sizes so you know which ones you're working with.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[dverna]

Do a search for “From ingot to Target” It is free and a good resource.

I may have missed it but are you casting for pistol or rifle...and if for rifle are you looking at low velocity plinking loads or velocities over 2000 fps.

[Bigslug]

I’m debating about a chronograph and haven’t been able to justify it. Do you recommend it that much? Are you able to take that number and caliber and plug it into a calculator of some sort to determine the ballistics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. . .it's proven itself a real time and resource saver. My Dad hit upon the method in an article in the old Precision Shooting Magazine - Constantine, as I recall - back when we were competing in Highpower and Sierra Matchkings were the coin of the realm. You don't want to burn any more of those than you need to.

When you're careful and observant with your incremental strings, you can watch both your velocities and their impacts on the target. You'll frequently see your impacts shift around with the various velocity nodes, and you often get clusters as your pressure and velocity settle on one plateau. Dad did a lot of statistical analysis in his job at the time, and so was able to get pretty nerdy with his graphing software. He did load printouts that looked like the rise and fall of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. But it's worked out very well. We can usually fire about 20 rounds on one trip out, find the flat spot on the curve, load for that, prove it the next time out, and very often be done with that

Granted, we'll often try different powders, and sometimes a string will start showing signs of promise when we run out of rounds, and have to come back loaded hotter - often determining the true max load for that particular rifle along the way. That said, we've unquestionably burned up less ammo figuring out loads with the chronograph than we would have without one.

We tried a Lab Radar fairly recently, but haven't been a fan. We went back to our old Oehler 35P with a ticker-tape printer. It's brain will hold data for 20 shots and will spit out the speed of the highest and lowest, the spread between those two extremes, the average of speed of however many were in the string, and the standard deviation of the string.

In addition to the uses I've already mentioned, it often shows you some very informative stuff about how a propellant behaves. Some will be very spiky from one plateau to the next; others will have a smooth, almost boring progression of "X tenths of a grain = about Y FPS increase in speed. I imagine living without it would be like dropping down from coloring with the full deluxe set of Prismacolor colored pencils to the little primary color sets of Crayola crayons they give kids in restaurants - the chrono gives you a much deeper picture of what's going on.

[Larry Gibson]

Plus one on what Bigslug said^^^^^

[M-Tecs]

Some more interesting discussion on testing methods. https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/long-range-load-development-at-100-yards.3814361/

[Larry Gibson]

Some more interesting discussion on testing methods. https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/long-range-load-development-at-100-yards.3814361/

I use somewhat the same method when developing a load with a new cartridge or powder. First is use quality bullets, jacketed or cast. Then I load an incremental test of 3 shot of each increment up to listed manual maximum loads if available. I always chronograph (Oehler M35P) or both chronograph and pressure test (Oehler M43 PBL). What i look for is a reasonable (less than 50 fps ES) velocity for that cartridge/bullet. If pressure testing, I also look for the "reasonable" load to be in a safe pressure range for the cartridge/rifle.

I have 3 different kinds of bullet pullers so, if pressure signs arise, I stop testing and pull the bullets back at home. Sometimes with a "new everything" I load the incremental tests based on interpolation of load data. The cases with the incremental charges in them stay in the load box w/o the bullet seated but just placed nose first in the cases. I then use a Lee hand press with the seating die at the range to seat the bullets before testing. That way if pressure becomes a problem or the powders just isn't giving any kind of expected performance, I stop testing. The bullets do not need pulling and the powder is easily poured out with the primed cases being ready for another test.

If the testing works out I will then load three 10 shot tests +/- 1/2 gr with the most promising load to chronograph/group test. That tells me if the load(s) is acceptable for further use If testing a new rifle I prefer to go with a known, proven , accurate load to see what the rifle can potentially do before "developing a load. Many times the rifle will do as well as it will with that proven load.

I also see no sense in wasting a lot of good bullets, powder and barrel life trying a multitude of load/bullet combination trying to eke out (for one group most likely) a few thousanths of an inch smaller group. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.....