Re: 1000 yard group
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: phearkno1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StrategicEdge</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: phearkno1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StrategicEdge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
</div></div>
Thanks for the photos and looks like some great shooting!! The first image is exactly what splatter should look like!!! Now why the difference between your photo and the one I'm questioning? </div></div>
My point was not to question the man's honor. I was just showing that groups even smaller than his are no big deal at 1000 and certainly not worth calling a man a liar in my book. I shot all of those with a stock TRG during load development (not one of my benchrest guns)...so am I lying??? The steel was 5 shots in a row without missing...now will you say I missed? A lot of other pasters on some of those targets...did I paste the bad shots and then take the photo??? They are all from 1000 yards (actually 1014 since I am too lazy to move the targets forward after bush-hoggin last year)...did I shoot them at 100 yards??? <-----all rhetorical questions.
I don't know the guy, don't care doesn't matter to me. If he is dishonest it is his problem and not mine. If he is honest, it is his badge and not mine. I just don't see why any of you would care enough (or think it is your place) to call him out. Wouldn't you be better off spending your time honing your own skills? </div></div>
Never once did I question the size of the group. All I questioned was that it looked photoshoped. Yes we must take peoples word as the truth because it is the internet. But when I see bullet holes that dont look real I have a problem with it. And yes I do think that his dishonesty is a problem of yours and a problem of mine and a problem for this site. Being members of this site you and I should want nothing but the truth on here. If you turn a blind eye on a dishonest photo or a post misinforming people then you are allowing the intergrity of this site be lowered to the point where we might as well argue whether a dragon vs a unicorn in a fight would win!!!!!
I discovered this site from a friend who said it was a great place to get information! Well if you cant tell the difference between real and fake was he wrong? So far only two people have bothered to open their eyes and look at a picture (one person actually took the time to photoshop it and prove my point, did you click on that link?)! What if I post a thread and get info on a reload that is way over pressure (i know thats my own risk) but are you going to bother to question it or just take it as the gospel????? </div></div>
Turbo, we covered this yesterday in the Shoutbox, yet still you persist.
So I will REPEAT for you what I told you yesterday in the 'Box.
I had no reason to ? whether this target was legit. It looked legit to me at first glance.
Nonetheless to answer your 'question' I looked at the target at 1600 percent zoom in Photoshop.
Your claim that the impacts look 'artificial' is so totally bogus that its laughable. Its VERY apparent when you zoom in and look at the RGB numbers surrounding the POI's that those impacts were caused by REAL bullet's hitting a real target. You can see variations in the gray patches (bullet splash) that can't be anything OTHER THAN man made. It's not a computer manipulation. You can even see where the impact craters are not uniform (like you would expect to see in the real world).
The target is legit, end of story.