Range Report How can a rifle shoot poorly at 100 but well at 1000?

[Dthomas3523]

These so called best builders must also absolutely hate free money.

Litz offered a substantial sum for anyone who could bring such a rifle to AB and prove it.

Since it such a widely known fact among the best builders, seems awfully strange no one showed up for the free money.

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

1) school systems are seriously lacking teaching people what a Free Body Diagram is. Half the crap in here wouldnt even be typed.

2)you dont have to understand ballistics to be a great gun plumber. how many rifles do you think gun builders actually shoot to get any type of data off of besides it will feed and go bang when the trigger is pulled with no issues? Most are machinists who crossed over a hobby to a job, does not even come close to qualifying them to be experts on ballistics. Again look at free body diagrams and apply them...this 100yrd / 1000yrd nonsense is just that...nonsense.

 

[phlegethon]

I really don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but the video I posted earlier clearly shows in slow motion how the pellet does actually travel in a spiral orbit... for whatever reason.

That is not at all clear. The video shows a spiral pattern but you are viewing the bullet through its own wake. You aren’t seeing an undistorted view of the bullet.

 

[nick338]

I'm not trying to discredit any research or change physics in any way. We have all shot enough to see some strange, unexplained shit and this is not a theory that I came up with. It's really only conversation as it appears that we getting to the point of no return and I only want to learn more about what causes different anomalies not argue about them.

 

[Rocketvapor]

Try it with an airsoft pellet
I got my 10 yard spiral right on target

 

[nick338]

1) school systems are seriously lacking teaching people what a Free Body Diagram is. Half the crap in here wouldnt even be typed.

2)you dont have to understand ballistics to be a great gun plumber. how many rifles do you think gun builders actually shoot to get any type of data off of besides it will feed and go bang when the trigger is pulled with no issues? Most are machinists who crossed over a hobby to a job, does not even come close to qualifying them to be experts on ballistics. Again look at free body diagrams and apply them...this 100yrd / 1000yrd nonsense is just that...nonsense.

One of them I'm referring to built and tested .338 Lapua rifles for the military. I would think the military would award a contract to someone that was able to back up what they were talking about with real world data.

 

[Dthomas3523]

One of them I'm referring to built and tested .338 Lapua rifles for the military. I would think the military would award a contract to someone that was able to back up what they were talking about with real world data.

You can’t be fucking serious right now??

Have you seen some of the contracts the government awarded??

Are we playing a game where we come up with the worst examples possible?

 

[Dthomas3523]

One of them I'm referring to built and tested .338 Lapua rifles for the military. I would think the military would award a contract to someone that was able to back up what they were talking about with real world data.

Also, where is his “data”?

Someone who holds data proving one of the most controversial topics in ballistics surely has published it?

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

One of them I'm referring to built and tested .338 Lapua rifles for the military. I would think the military would award a contract to someone that was able to back up what they were talking about with real world data.

I'll clarify a little bit. I in no way say what he sees happen at 100 vs 1000 is a lie, HOWEVER, its not because of the gun/bullet.

If you group 2" at 100 the bullet is already on that path and will not return to be tighter unless external forces acted on it. Lets a bullet is shot and say 1" off dead center at 100. There would have to be some external force put on that bullet either abruptly or subtly to bring the groups tighter. If we call it spin drift does it...well spin drift is a constant so it will only bring it one direction (right if right twist) about 7 inches, but if we are already 1" off course from 100yrds that adds another potential 7" to the horizontal group size in the extreme...we are talking 27" groups just in the horizontal and not accounting for any wind.

As said above any wobble in the rotation of the bullet will still revolve around a centroid point of the bullet, that spin/wobble means nothing (see below on wind factor, it affects it) in the path of that centroid. Im not saying there cant be wobble because that is documented in oddly shaped target holes but to come out of a wobble you usually need to speed up an object to stabilize it, not decrease rotational speed which is what happens once the bullet is out of the barrel. Wind will effect a bullet wobbling and make the groups absolute crap at any type of distance.

 

[nick338]

You can’t be fucking serious right now??

Have you seen some of the contracts the government awarded??

Are we playing a game where we come up with the worst examples possible?

No it sounds like we are trying to prove who can be the biggest asshole.

Without mentioning who it is, he is the most straight forward, tell it like is builder I have come across and had built and SHOT more 338 Lapua's before most builders new the cartridge even existed.

And clearly it's no longer a controversial topic as you have educated us all on how stupid we are.

 

[Lowlight]

Visible issues when overspinning a bullet

People just want an excuse that is not "THEM"...

They hunt for reasons despite the fact we are dealing with ANGLES and you cannot make the angle smaller the farther out you go.

PS spindrift is not constant, it's read that way, but it's not. There are other variables involved.

 

[Long Range 338]

I agree with the Op that often times my rifle will shoot better at longer range (usually around 300 to 600 yards) than it does up close, and while it may defy rational thought, it still seems to occur just the same. Not always mind you, but often enough to think there is something more going on.

I have two possible theories on the point...

1) Light refraction and mirage makes it hard to shoot tight groups at close range, (because of target displacement caused by light refraction humidity and heat) but at longer ranges, under the right conditions, perhaps the target displacement averages out.

2) The second possible explanation is that the bullet begins life with a certain imbalance that causes it to travel in an orbit about the directional axis. At close range, this orbiting has not settled out yet, or perhaps never does.

Here's an interesting video on YouTube showing an over powered pellet in flight. It travels in a circular spiral pattern that appears larger than the group he produces. If the target was moved a foot or two closer, the group would shift POI to somewhere else along the spiral path.

You can trust this airgun guy, I'm gonna put my money on the rocket scientist (Litz).

 

[Lowlight]

All I know is that I've printed more 1 inch groups at 300 yards than I have 0.3 inch groups at 100 yards. You could argue that I simply shoot more at 300 than 100, which would not be wrong. So then we entertain the possibility of Confirmation Bias, or Dumb Luck.

Pretty simple,

Put a rice paper target in between you and 300 yards, at 100 yards and shoot it. Aim at 300, pretend 100 doesn't exist and print it on paper.

if the group at 300 is smaller than at 100 Applied Ballistics is offering a bounty to anyone who can make this happen. Whatever Bryan offered in his original bounty I will match it

it's you, the sight picture at 300 yards tricks your brain into thinking the recoil is less than at 100 yards.

 

[nick338]

Visible issues when overspinning a bullet

View attachment 7270860

People just want an excuse that is not "THEM"...

They hunt for reasons despite the fact we are dealing with ANGLES and you cannot make the angle smaller the farther out you go.

PS spindrift is not constant, it's read that way, but it's not. There are other variables involved.

That's quite the example, thanks for posting.

 

[Dthomas3523]

No it sounds like we are trying to prove who can be the biggest asshole.

Without mentioning who it is, he is the most straight forward, tell it like is builder I have come across and had built and SHOT more 338 Lapua's before most builders new the cartridge even existed.

And clearly it's no longer a controversial topic as you have educated us all on how stupid we are.

And he’s keeping all this info secret right? Since according to you, he knows and has data that a rifle/bullet can shoot worse at closer distance than further.

That’s what’s going on here?

Or, is it all conjecture and no one has any of the data that would even hint at this being true?

 

[Lowlight]

What I see when this conversation comes around every couple of years,

 

[Lowlight]

A better example, I don't know what I was originally thinking

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

 

[Dthomas3523]

Fucking flat earthers man.

 

[nick338]

And he’s keeping all this info secret right? Since according to you, he knows and has data that a rifle/bullet can shoot worse at closer distance than further.

That’s what’s going on here?

Or, is it all conjecture and no one has any of the data that would even hint at this being true?

Not sure why you feel the need to continue this. Frank and others have posted several times that epicyclic swerve is not the cause of what myself and other shooters have seen and I'm not accusing any one of being incorrect. I simply made a reference to information passed on to me by a well respected builder that he had based on actual shooting experience with a specific cartridge.

Perhaps spending time building and shooting the rifles and collecting data even if it was interpreted incorrectly was a way to advise customers on the best practices at the time. And please don't pretend that you haven't heard this before about bullets going to sleep. Whether or not there is any merit to it or not it's made its way through the industry several times over throughout the years.

 

[nick338]

Fucking flat earthers man.

Don't hurt yourself pounding your chest he-man.

 

[Lowlight]

Not sure why you feel the need to continue this. Frank and others have posted several times that epicyclic swerve is not the cause of what myself and other shooters have seen and I'm not accusing any one of being incorrect. I simply made a reference to information passed on to me by a well respected builder that he had based on actual shooting experience with a specific cartridge.

Perhaps spending time building and shooting the rifles and collecting data even if it was interpreted incorrectly was a way to advise customers on the best practices at the time. And please don't pretend that you haven't heard this before about bullets going to sleep. Whether or not there is any merit to it or not it's made its way through the industry several times over throughout the years.

What you don't get is, old wives tales like Bullets Going to Sleep, especially beyond 100 is A MYTH and we are trying to tell you this, and you keep arguing back.

Old Wives Tales are such that they often get repeated and taken as gospel by plenty of well-respected people.

Again, if you look at the cases that are most prevalent on the internet regarding this observation, 90% are with magnum rifles. Why do we see this topic more so with magnum rifles vs standard calibers, one word, RECOIL.

When we lead a horse to water and they refuse to drink, you get mocked and mocked endlessly.

Think about what this topic is suggesting, that a dumb pilotless bullet will travel erratically early on and then stabilize mid-way through and somehow end up back on course? Without a pilot and if the bullet is indeed swirling in a circle causing a bad group at 100 yards, how does it self correct back on target? These are angles after all and angles cannot fold back on themselves.

You need an outside force to close things back up,

Furthermore, let's consider the minor variations in Muzzle Velocity, in bullet weight, and what you are trying to say is every bullet in that group is deviating at the same amount in the same direction. We know this is not the case, they all cannot be doing the same thing together as a group if they are doing things differently in order to open up the group.

When your magnum rifle groups look like this:

230gr Bergers, at 2990fps out of my 300NM ... call me.

My final thought, when did you ever read about stuff like this, where the shooter blamed THEM, it's always some phantom Drift that is doing it. Meanwhile, they create all sorts of situations to dial out the drifts so you will be accurate again. Please spare me.

Work on you the rest will follow...

 

[Lowlight]

On and PS,

Ask the experts who explained, it was the bullet going to sleep what exactly they did to test this ?

Did they simply shoot as normal, like everyone does each day and observe their group being smaller at distance so was the answer,

Oh ya, I have seen it, and it's the bullet going to sleep, does the same for me...

or

Oh ya, I saw this, so I was curious and went out and shot a group through a paper target at 100 while aiming at 300 and I have an example right here of a 1-inch group at 100 and a 1-inch group at 300?

Paper doesn't lie, you can't hide from paper, so show me a single instance of someone demonstrating it in a no-bullshit way, vs just talking about it like they know something?

 

[spife7980]

I still wish that I had a flat area, instead of shooting over a creek valley. Id like to put a shot marker e target to shoot through at 100 yards imparting zero influence to the bullet and then a paper target at 500 and see how the groups compare for myself. It would be nice to be able to try and bring some evidence to this.

 

[Lowlight]

I can do this weekend, but i don't have my shot marker set up, I would have to try and hit the range and build it.

I can probably do paper but the problem is, I can't recreate a bad group at 100 and better group at a distance

My groups are angular so we need someone there who "Sees" it .

It doesn't happen to me, which again, Science, if this was Science like everyone wants it to be, why doesn't happen every time, and only with some people, and why are the majority of those people NEW SHOOTERS?

Look at it this way, if the angle was changing downrange, wouldn't the group show an odd offset in a random direction? Or if it was twist rate related wouldn't those changes follow the twist?

 

[nick338]

On and PS,

Ask the experts who explained, it was the bullet going to sleep what exactly they did to test this ?

Did they simply shoot as normal, like everyone does each day and observe their group being smaller at distance so was the answer,

Oh ya, I have seen it, and it's the bullet going to sleep, does the same for me...

or

Oh ya, I saw this, so I was curious and went out and shot a group through a paper target at 100 while aiming at 300 and I have an example right here of a 1-inch group at 100 and a 1-inch group at 300?

Paper doesn't lie, you can't hide from paper, so show me a single instance of someone demonstrating it in a no-bullshit way, vs just talking about it like they know something?

My argument isn't against you and the physics behind it. I didn't start the topic or necessarily believe in the theory 100%. This conversation took place at least 10 years ago when I was shooting 338 Lapua all the time and not really focusing on the science behind it so I trusted the information I was given and did not question how it was obtained. Some of what I posted was just asking questions until I was attacked for just repeating old information.

I don't shoot it anymore but I can attest that the recoil causes some crazy shit to happen to groups, more so now after this thread and thinking back to what I was seeing on paper I never really cared what the groups looked like at 100 yards because the rifle was always very accurate at 600 yards and beyond.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Not sure why you feel the need to continue this. Frank and others have posted several times that epicyclic swerve is not the cause of what myself and other shooters have seen and I'm not accusing any one of being incorrect. I simply made a reference to information passed on to me by a well respected builder that he had based on actual shooting experience with a specific cartridge.

Perhaps spending time building and shooting the rifles and collecting data even if it was interpreted incorrectly was a way to advise customers on the best practices at the time. And please don't pretend that you haven't heard this before about bullets going to sleep. Whether or not there is any merit to it or not it's made its way through the industry several times over throughout the years.

Because you keep bringing up this rifle maker who told you something that tested rifles for the military.....as if it means something.

Put his name or data out there, or stfu.

Its 2020. You either have data or you don’t.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Also you do realize I’m quoting you right? That means anytime I “continue” this, it’s in response to you bringing up the mystery rifle builder and why his credentials mean he’s correct.

 

[Molon]

Since some people in this thread seem to be mis-characterizing what Bryan Litz has said on this subject matter, here's some actual data on the subject matter from Mr Litz, himself.


The first target pictured below shows a measured 5-shot group that was fired by Bryan Litz at a distance of 100 yards on his “shoot thru” target set-up. The group has an extreme spread of 2.46 MOA.

The next target shows the impact at 300 yards of the exact same 5 shots that were fired at the 100 yard target. The extreme spread for the resulting 5-shot group at 300 yards is 2.49 MOA.

.
.
.
.
and again . . .


William C. Davis has reported on tests conducted at Frankford Arsenal on this subject matter. Using machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test-barrels, one such test that was conducted on an indoor-range involved firing eighteen 10-shot groups on targets at 100 yards and 300 yards. The average extreme spread for the groups at 300 yards was 3 times as large as the average extreme spread of the groups at 100 yards.

In another test that was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground using .30 caliber match-grade ammunition, thirteen 10-shot groups were fired simultaneously through paper screens at different distances. The mean radius for the groups at 300 yards was 1.0”. The mean radius at 600 yards was 2.1”.


.....

 

[Diver160651]

I can still vividly remember a 'department" guy shooting his 338LM at the 100y line. Sitting turned sideways, shooting and then the gun ending up almost sideways. He'd have to disengage, sit up and move the gun back into place. Everything he was doing was wrong.

It was clear he was struggling, but walking out to the target, I was amazed just how badly he was shooting, certainly way over a MOA, maybe two. He goes on telling me how this gun is not made to shoot at 100 yards, and "my bullets do not go to sleep until at least 300 yards, but by 500-1000 yards, it's a laser beam." He had no idea that my 338 is a 1-hole gun at 100 and reasonably sure he had never shot his past 100 yards either. Of course, the conversation continued about his role "at work" and the fact that he said, " I may someday need to stop a moving vehicle at long range by shooting through the engine block, that's why I need the 338 LAPUA MAGNUM." I am thinking, maybe hit the static target at 100 first, shoot more, talk less.

I've heard some version of this type of story many times at the public range. It is almost always involving a 300WM or 338LM, and always someone with a similar lack of skill and understanding as above.

I am convinced that most of the propagation of the Myth of the "sleeping Bullet" is from guys with big egos, shooting hard recoiling systems without the fundamentals needed to manage the recoil consistently and trying to cover up their lack of ability. The root of the Myth stems from hearing that bullet "yaw" might slightly settle with distance. Lacking the understanding of basic and necessary skills, they have no concept of how very little theoretical yaw shift contributes to the picture and blow it into stupidity.

If you are that guy that believes that your "sleeping bullets" are magical, you need to invest in a precision rifle class with a reputable instructor. If nothing else, don't use your keyboard to join the stupid is as stupid does club.

Yaw and Yaw settling in; if theoretical yaw and yaw reduction is present, is so small, we have to exaggerate it in illustrations even to begin to visualize the behavior. Then these exaggerated examples, of course, feedback into the Myth above.

Below is an image of my Hide profile and the very same 338 bullets people shoot and claim needed time to sleep. It is a group off a bipod and at 100y. Assuming a bit of yaw, it is easy to see that any oscillation is hidden by the diameter of the bullet, even more so by the group's hole. With that said, if the tiny bit of yaw does reduce, how would it even realistically impact the group size?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Since some people in this thread seem to be mis-characterizing what Bryan Litz has said on this subject matter, here's some actual data on the subject matter from Mr Litz, himself.


The first target pictured below shows a measured 5-shot group that was fired by Bryan Litz at a distance of 100 yards on his “shoot thru” target set-up. The group has an extreme spread of 2.46 MOA.

The next target shows the impact at 300 yards of the exact same 5 shots that were fired at the 100 yard target. The extreme spread for the resulting 5-shot group at 300 yards is 2.49 MOA.

.
.
.
.
and again . . .


William C. Davis has reported on tests conducted at Frankford Arsenal on this subject matter. Using machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test-barrels, one such test that was conducted on an indoor-range involved firing eighteen 10-shot groups on targets at 100 yards and 300 yards. The average extreme spread for the groups at 300 yards was 3 times as large as the average extreme spread of the groups at 100 yards.

In another test that was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground using .30 caliber match-grade ammunition, thirteen 10-shot groups were fired simultaneously through paper screens at different distances. The mean radius for the groups at 300 yards was 1.0”. The mean radius at 600 yards was 2.1”.


.....

See......now there is data.

 

[Lowlight]

Human Factor...

Cool, paper, I didn't realize Bryan shot it, I knew he spoke about it and offered a bounty to prove otherwise, but I didn't realize he had images.

Also, the military is not always right, especially back in the day. Sniper manuals prior to 2001 have errors in them, Many are minor but annoying because people repeat the errors. The most common one is the Humidity, it's backward in the manuals. Prior to software, everyone used to say 20-degree changes in temperature will move the bullet 1 inch, but they never said where: 100, 400, 1000, it was meant to be 1000 but that part was missing. So it was super vague and generalize. Minute of man is pretty forgiving accuracy wise especially when average recent engagements are around 400m. Sure plenty of exceptions, but they are just that.

Today they do a better job, remember military training is incestuous, it's just "hey you got the job say this", there is no instructor program per se, it's just who has the job this cycle. Again, better today because they go to outside schools, it's not 100% Army anymore, so the training is better.

Glad this is settled

 

[nick338]

I can still vividly remember a 'department" guy shooting his 338LM at the 100y line. Sitting turned sideways, shooting and then the gun ending up almost sideways. He'd have to disengage, sit up and move the gun back into place. Everything he was doing was wrong.

It was clear he was struggling, but walking out to the target, I was amazed just how badly he was shooting, certainly way over a MOA, maybe two. He goes on telling me how this gun is not made to shoot at 100 yards, and "my bullets do not go to sleep until at least 300 yards, but by 500-1000 yards, it's a laser beam." He had no idea that my 338 is a 1-hole gun at 100 and reasonably sure he had never shot his past 100 yards either. Of course, the conversation continued about his role "at work" and the fact that he said, " I may someday need to stop a moving vehicle at long range by shooting through the engine block, that's why I need the 338 LAPUA MAGNUM." I am thinking, maybe hit the static target at 100 first, shoot more, talk less.

I've heard some version of this type of story many times at the public range. It is almost always involving a 300WM or 338LM, and always someone with a similar lack of skill and understanding as above.

I am convinced that most of the propagation of the Myth of the "sleeping Bullet" is from guys with big egos, shooting hard recoiling systems without the fundamentals needed to manage the recoil consistently and trying to cover up their lack of ability. The root of the Myth stems from hearing that bullet "yaw" might slightly settle with distance. Lacking the understanding of basic and necessary skills, they have no concept of how very little theoretical yaw shift contributes to the picture and blow it into stupidity.

If you are that guy that believes that your "sleeping bullets" are magical, you need to invest in a precision rifle class with a reputable instructor. If nothing else, don't use your keyboard to join the stupid is as stupid does club.

Yaw and Yaw settling in; if theoretical yaw and yaw reduction is present, is so small, we have to exaggerate it in illustrations even to begin to visualize the behavior. Then these exaggerated examples, of course, feedback into the Myth above.

Below is an image of my Hide profile and the very same 338 bullets people shoot and claim needed time to sleep. It is a group off a bipod and at 100y. Assuming a bit of yaw, it is easy to see that any oscillation is hidden by the diameter of the bullet, even more so by the group's hole. With that said, if the tiny bit of yaw does reduce, how would it even realistically impact the group size?
View attachment 7271091

I witnessed a similar scenario about a year ago with someone shooting a Lapua at 300 yards while I was shooting an M14. I was grouping around half the size he was and he made it a point to tell me his loads don't settle down until 1000 yards. I honestly didn't care because although I had heard this many times before and I was more concerned with his shooting ability and why I was getting better groups with a semi-auto dinosaur than he was with his precision bolt action.

Thanks for posting a good read.

 

[nick338]

See......now there is data.

I'll never dispute actual data or not admit when I'm wrong. How about just engaging in normal conversation instead of letting your ego do the talking next time?

We all have different levels of experience in this game, some do it for a living and others do it for fun. I can't begin to have the same amount of time behind a rifle that Frank has so when a topic comes up and there is information that has been passed along, right or wrong it always seems to ruffle someone's feathers.

 

[nick338]

Human Factor...

Cool, paper, I didn't realize Bryan shot it, I knew he spoke about it and offered a bounty to prove otherwise, but I didn't realize he had images.

Also, the military is not always right, especially back in the day. Sniper manuals prior to 2001 have errors in them, Many are minor but annoying because people repeat the errors. The most common one is the Humidity, it's backward in the manuals. Prior to software, everyone used to say 20-degree changes in temperature will move the bullet 1 inch, but they never said where: 100, 400, 1000, it was meant to be 1000 but that part was missing. So it was super vague and generalize. Minute of man is pretty forgiving accuracy wise especially when average recent engagements are around 400m. Sure plenty of exceptions, but they are just that.

Today they do a better job, remember military training is incestuous, it's just "hey you got the job say this", there is no instructor program per se, it's just who has the job this cycle. Again, better today because they go to outside schools, it's not 100% Army anymore, so the training is better.

Glad this is settled

Agreed

 

[Campguy308]

Some of the best barrel makers also give a barrel break in procedure.

Points like this are comical.

Many years ago, when I got out the military and before I got into LE. I worked for a sprinkler company briefly.

I won’t go into detail on dry vs wet sprinkler systems, but air holds a flapper down in the valve which holds the water back until a head is popped letting the air escape.

I saw the gauge showing the air pressure at 15 psi (or something like that, I don’t remember the actual amount, just the scenario) and the gauge under showing the water pressure at 60psi.

I asked the guy who was regarded as the best sprinkler fitter around. He’d been doing it 35yrs. Everyone went to him for anything.

I asked “why is there less air pressure than water pressure and it’s holding it back?”

He told me, matter of factly, that 1psi of air was equal to 4psi of water.


But, he was the best. He must be correct right?

So why is there less air pressure than water pressure and it’s holding it back?

 

[Diver160651]

So why is there less air pressure than water pressure and it’s holding it back?

The air is just the final balance, it is not the total load, you have to include the surface area of the diaphragm as well.

But my 1 pound of feathers, is lighter than my 1 pound of lead - lol

My favorite thing in this thread is: Paraphrasing, mirage, and optical offsets are worse at 100 than far...

 

[Campguy308]

The air is just the final balance, it is not the total load.

But my 1 pound of feathers, is lighter than my 1 pound of lead - lol

My favorite thing in this thread is: Paraphrasing, mirage, and optical offsets are worse at 100 than far...

Oh. I was thinking the spring pressure from the flapper provided additional pressure, reducing what was required by the air.

 

[Dthomas3523]

So why is there less air pressure than water pressure and it’s holding it back?

The hole for the water was either 1-1/2 or 2”.

The flapper was like 6 or 8”.

Surface area.

At the time, I didn’t know that. I just knew it sounded wrong. Shortly after, I met a gentleman that was an engineer, but also had a ton of time in the field doing mechanical work. Best of both worlds. I asked him about that as it always stuck with me and he explained it. Opened my eyes that there are a ton of people very good at what they do, but don’t necessarily know the “why.”

This gentleman was also present when a welder that had been on the job 20+ years got into a verbal confrontation with his supervisor that only had about 5 years on the job. He kept touting his time on the job.

The gentleman calmly interjected “Do you have 25 years experience and knowledge or have you been doing same thing repeatedly for 25 years?”

True to form, I’ve always noticed the people that either go straight to how many years they have been doing something or how many years someone else has been doing something, rarely have any articulable facts or data to back it up.

Those that do, regardless of years of experience always show the facts first and fall back on their time in afterwards to illustrate they have seen those facts hold up.

 

[Superjet]

I hate shooting longer range groups.
My 600 yards groups are about 1.5 MOA for 60 shots.
With maybe a couple darn flyers
I keep reading about people with 1 inch to 1.5 inch groups at 600 to 800 yards.

Every rifle groups tighter online, if you do your part...

 

[Rocketvapor]

Want to bring this thread back to life?
Tell me again why I can't develop loads @ 100yds?
Has to be at least 300?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Want to bring this thread back to life?
Tell me again why I can't develop loads @ 100yds?
Has to be at least 300?

Lol.....

 

[Campguy308]

Want to bring this thread back to life?
Tell me again why I can't develop loads @ 100yds?
Has to be at least 300?

Maybe your flapper is too small.

 

[LastShot300]

William C. Davis has reported on tests conducted at Frankford Arsenal on this subject matter. Using machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test-barrels, one such test that was conducted on an indoor-range involved firing eighteen 10-shot groups on targets at 100 yards and 300 yards. The average extreme spread for the groups at 300 yards was 3 times as large as the average extreme spread of the groups at 100 yards.

In another test that was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground using .30 caliber match-grade ammunition, thirteen 10-shot groups were fired simultaneously through paper screens at different distances. The mean radius for the groups at 300 yards was 1.0”. The mean radius at 600 yards was 2.1”.

I'm not prone to quote myself, but on another forum I said the same...it's impossible to get a linearly smaller group, however, getting a smaller/or close enough angular group can happen, not frequently but it's a possibility nonetheless. One of the reasons for this, is explained by the laws of Thermodynamics, yet a complex subject and entropy is real key to explain this in a scientific way. Now, it's also clear that for some unexplainable reason some people is happy to bring this over and over again, but that will require to dwelve into the realms of pyschology

 

[PracticalTactical]

So if we all agree that the bullet is not coming back toward center somehow, then we must logically explore what other possible effects could explain such a result.

I eluded to it earlier, but light is refracted by humidity in the air and that can (and usually does) cause the target to appear in different places at different times. Obviously its not actually moving, just the image of it is.

Perhaps this is why we so often struggle to print small groups at close range as we point our rifles off here or there at what we think is the center of our target when it is actually a slight bit somewhere else.

To explain groups improving at longer ranges, possibly this refracted light effect has a way of averaging out at increased distances, but at close range, it moves more quickly.

This might also explain why shooting from a clamped rifle disproves this effect as a bullet flight phenomena, yet when manually aiming the rifle this effect is often noted.

Perhaps our 5/8 MOA rifle at 100 yards is really a 3/8 MOA rifle with 1/4 MOA light refraction problem.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Light and humidity will *likely* have a greater effect at distance, as I have seen data from shooters I trust showing some pretty large swings in dope just based on lighting at the target at distance.

Occam’s Razor says we are likely over complicating this.

When shooting groups at 100, shooters tend to do a couple things:

Not take it seriously enough
Take it too seriously

Some don’t concentrate enough at 100 because they feel it is easy. Then they apply the proper amount of concentration at distance.

Some concentrate too much. They struggle to get that perfectly still reticle on the smallest target they can. They tense up or do other things that end up hurting more than helping. Then when they get to distance and the target is larger, they feel more comfortable with an acceptable amount of reticle wobble and apply the right amount of concentration.

This is likely why you never see shooters who apply the fundamentals properly at all ranges experience the “sleeping bullet” phenomenon.

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

clamping disproves it because you take the truly stupid thing away from the rifle...the person. Unless you are at a rave there is no way the light is moving position fast enough to screw up a 3, 5, 10rd group, people on the high side will shoot a group in under 5 minutes, 10 if we are stretching it. Again...as LL mentions we are dealing with angles...if we say it is moving fast enough to impact groups at 100 we are talking at such a small level that the accuracy in which you can measure a group will blow any of that variation out of the water.

light at distance making it move...sure but it will be consistent for a period of time, enough to shoot a group. Wind and mirage will fuck with you more than worrying about light shift.

its the person driving (or not driving) the rifle.

 

[PAYDIRT]

Light and humidity will *likely* have a greater effect at distance, as I have seen data from shooters I trust showing some pretty large swings in dope just based on lighting at the target at distance.

Occam’s Razor says we are likely over complicating this.

When shooting groups at 100, shooters tend to do a couple things:

Not take it seriously enough
Take it too seriously

Some don’t concentrate enough at 100 because they feel it is easy. Then they apply the proper amount of concentration at distance.

Some concentrate too much. They struggle to get that perfectly still reticle on the smallest target they can. They tense up or do other things that end up hurting more than helping. Then when they get to distance and the target is larger, they feel more comfortable with an acceptable amount of reticle wobble and apply the right amount of concentration.

This is likely why you never see shooters who apply the fundamentals properly at all ranges experience the “sleeping bullet” phenomenon.

THIS. Just like playing for fun or playing for $.

 

[Dthomas3523]

clamping disproves it because you take the truly stupid thing away from the rifle...the person. Unless you are at a rave there is no way the light is moving position fast enough to screw up a 3, 5, 10rd group, people on the high side will shoot a group in under 5 minutes, 10 if we are stretching it. Again...as LL mentions we are dealing with angles...if we say it is moving fast enough to impact groups at 100 we are talking at such a small level that the accuracy in which you can measure a group will blow any of that variation out of the water.

light at distance making it move...sure but it will be consistent for a period of time, enough to shoot a group. Wind and mirage will fuck with you more than worrying about light shift.

its the person driving (or not driving) the rifle.

The light shift is more if an effect if “I got my data on an overcast day. Then the next day the sun was on the target and I went .3 high.”

Just making that scenario up, but that’s the gist of it.

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

The light shift is more if an effect if “I got my data on an overcast day. Then the next day the sun was on the target and I went .3 high.”

Just making that scenario up, but that’s the gist of it.

I dont disagree...95% of my matches I get my squad bitching of wind jumps and light position and all this bullshit...yet my dope and calls arent off and they say something must be off for me. No one wants to blame themselves...always gear, bullets, light, wind swirls...you name it.

the internet is the best and worst for fucking information. honestly its like the hide is getting overrun by the campfire forum people.

Been trying to give benefit of the doubt peoples side without coming off like too much of a dick while disagreeing.