Rifle Tuning and Technology?

[obx22]

With all the apps and devices (LabRadar, Magnetospeed, Garmen, etc…), plus the barrel tuners available to the masses, exotic stock materials, ballistic apps, etc. has anyone tried tuning their rifle itself with any acoustic devices?
These are sound recordings of my B14-R dryfired on a spent casing. Left to Right are
1. With action screws torque tuned to best groups and any distance with multiple ammo.
2. With muzzle thread cover removed (haven’t tested groups).
3. Hera forward blow compensator (3” long steel).
4. WarHog compensator.

With compensators installed, there are huge amounts of vertical stringing.
All rounds fired were recorded from chronograph to correlate disparity with grouping and velocity variations.

Thoughts?

 

[obx22]

Just so I understand this.....you are measuring the harmonic response of the gun when the firing pin drops.....and comparing that to accuracy on target?

Exactly, looking for parallels with accuracy and harmonics.

 

[Gustav7]

Looks interesting but I'd be curious on the following:
1.) Is the recording at a sensitive enough metric to see discrepancies and patterns?
2.) Is there too much "noise" that correlates to nothing that shows up on the graphs and confuses the results?
3.) Deciphering WHAT exactly you're looking for that correlates to accuracy or positive compensation

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

This is probably a really neat idea but I think there's going to have to be some ways to define what's being looked at. There might be some there , there, though???

 

[obx22]

So back history:
I have proven that Torque Tuning action screws works on my chassis. It works with 3 different brands of ammo, and at 50 and 100 yards on paper, although I use this rimfire in monthly matches from 25-400+ yards.
The app is called SpectrumView, and gives the same image whether in contact with the rifle (resting on the scope rail), sitting 1/2” inline with the muzzle, or on the carpet below the rifle. These repeatable results show promise for when I started screwing around with adding different muzzle devices.
The gun is on bipod and bag, held as though firing through the recording. I made many recordings this weekend, constantly tweaking the adjustments in the app to get as much “visibility” in the harmonics.
Since I’m starting with a “known” pinnacle in this combo’s accuracy, and can obviously (on target) make it worse, I’m wondering if the information could be used as a tool to make things even better.
Maybe this is useless, but will trigger someone to try something else that will improve accuracy.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

View attachment 8256041
With all the apps and devices (LabRadar, Magnetospeed, Garmen, etc…), plus the barrel tuners available to the masses, exotic stock materials, ballistic apps, etc. has anyone tried tuning their rifle itself with any acoustic devices?
These are sound recordings of my B14-R dryfired on a spent casing. Left to Right are
1. With action screws torque tuned to best groups and any distance with multiple ammo.
2. With muzzle thread cover removed (haven’t tested groups).
3. Hera forward blow compensator (3” long steel).
4. WarHog compensator.

With compensators installed, there are huge amounts of vertical stringing.
All rounds fired were recorded from chronograph to correlate disparity with grouping and velocity variations.

Thoughts?

Interesting stuff. Once you get far enough along, you'll need to be able to isolate BC/bullet difference/deformation.

As in, you'll need to be able to confidently say the vertical stringing isn't due to something the compensators are change other than the harmonics.

 

[Ledzep]

1. Are the results repeatable? If you repeat the "same" thing do you get the same results, do you know the typical error bounds?
2. Do the results correlate?
3. Do the inputs cause the outputs?
4. Can you reliably manipulate the inputs to get desired outputs?

 

[Maurygold]

You had better be shooting some tiny, tiny groups to be trying to reinvent the wheel so radically (and senselessly?)

 

[308pirate]

View attachment 8256041
With all the apps and devices (LabRadar, Magnetospeed, Garmen, etc…), plus the barrel tuners available to the masses, exotic stock materials, ballistic apps, etc. has anyone tried tuning their rifle itself with any acoustic devices?
These are sound recordings of my B14-R dryfired on a spent casing. Left to Right are
1. With action screws torque tuned to best groups and any distance with multiple ammo.
2. With muzzle thread cover removed (haven’t tested groups).
3. Hera forward blow compensator (3” long steel).
4. WarHog compensator.

With compensators installed, there are huge amounts of vertical stringing.
All rounds fired were recorded from chronograph to correlate disparity with grouping and velocity variations.

Thoughts?

This data is useless because there is neither a bullet nor a gas volume traveling down the bore

 

[kthomas]

Neat acoustic recordings, but I'm very skeptical as to how this information can be practically applied to your intended analysis.

 

[chevy_man]

Are you using a phone app?

What microphone?


I'd think some sort of vibration tester attached to the barrel would be the only way to get good accurate results.

Dry firing is not firing. You'll need to be able to see what the pressure does as it travels down the barrel.

 

[kthomas]

Are you using a phone app?

What microphone?


I'd think some sort of vibration tester attached to the barrel would be the only way to get good accurate results.

Dry firing is not firing. You'll need to be able to see what the pressure does as it travels down the barrel.

You also need to map out what the barrel is doing in 4D.

How is the barrel moving in 3 dimensions, over the time frame from when the ignition system is engaged to when the projectile leaves the barrel.

 

[308pirate]

Yes but the pressure and moving mass of the bullet are going to be constants from setup to setup...

Are they? One would think so but data has a way of sometimes making our assumption invalid.

First off ammunition will never be as repeatable on its effect on the system as the drop of a firing pin on a spent case. It's the nature of chemical vs mechanical reactions.

So if you notice your barreled action give you a mode at 1000hz and it shoots better than a setup that gives you a node at 3000 hz....and it's repeatable and trending data, the effect of the bullet on the freq response is

But see you're now talking about data collected during live fire.

All I'm saying is that the data presented here, while interesting, it's not enough to make any decisions on.

 

[obx22]

All excellent replies.
How about if I adjust the torque to where the gun groups terribly (and yes, that is repeatable, as is retorquing to tightest grouping). Then get a pic of that resonance?
Perhaps the bad could reveal just as much if not more than the good?
As to the excellent question of whether the sound comes from firing pin spring, scope, etc. I can relay another interesting experience (with a different rifle).
Have a very accurate sporter, amazingly so. Decided I didn’t care for the height of the scope, so I purchased shorter rings of the same manufacturer. Rifle didn’t group as well. I switched back and forth several times, testing in hand as well as free recoil. My only explanation would be either some type of “tuning fork effect” from lowering the scope screwed the groups?

 

[obx22]

Based on my understanding of what you are trying to do, I would do the following

1) remove the bolt and scope
2) torque action to 40, 45, 50,55,60,65,ECT in-lbs and record the resonance for each.
3) see if there is any mode shift that correlates to torque settings
4) using the same lot of ammo, shoot several groups at each torque setting and come to an "average"group size for each torque.
5) see if you have any trend lines that correlate torque/mode to group size.

From there you can see if different settings/ configs alter model response...tune your action to known "good shooting modes" via torque...and see if the gun is still shooting good groups, and use the mode response ad a method of tuning

Ok, and understand I’m speaking humbly cause I’m genuinely interested in grasping what you are saying. I’ve torque tested my rifle with 3 different types and brands of ammo, at 2 different ranges (50 and 100yds) at 5 in/lb increments from 30 to 55. I then went 4 inch lbs higher and lower of tight “nodes” or areas of tighter grouping till I determined that 38 was the magic number for this set-up. Since then the rifle has been torn down multiple times and cleaned following particularly dirty matches, torqued back to spec, and not only returns to its tight groups, but also to zero. This means I can switch to 45 in/lbs (a particularly horrible setting), then return to 38 and the gun resumes shooting well.
I’m just throwing experience out there, I don’t know what conclusions to draw yet. If a given resonance could be used to “predict” what would do well in a given set-up, that would definitely be useful.
How is what I’ve already done any different?

 

[mick243]

Have a very accurate sporter, amazingly so. Decided I didn’t care for the height of the scope, so I purchased shorter rings of the same manufacturer. Rifle didn’t group as well. I switched back and forth several times, testing in hand as well as free recoil. My only explanation would be either some type of “tuning fork effect” from lowering the scope screwed the groups?

could also be something as simple as with the differing ring height, the shooters head and hold mechanics of the rifle were different.....

 

[NiteQwill]

At some point, you people just need to start shooting and actually enjoying your stuff. The constant tinkering is...

 

[NiteQwill]

your second sentence answers your first...for a lot of us, the tinkering is part of the enjoyment.

I'm sure tinkering nodes exist.

 

[kthomas]

I'm sure tinkering nodes exist.

Undoubtedly

 

[Slides]

Scope height above barrel offsets weight in the stock below line of bore, reducing whip. You could play with that effect adding thicker steel top rings or similar.

 

[Maurygold]

Scope height above barrel offsets weight in the stock below line of bore, reducing whip. You could play with that effect adding thicker steel top rings or similar.

How does weight on the action effect the barrel whip???

 

[Wall_Element]

At some point, you people just need to start shooting and actually enjoying your stuff. The constant tinkering is...

People get what they want from the hobby in whatever way they want? Maybe?

In any event, if people were all wired the same - we wouldn't have ballistics calculators, have a better understanding of multi-bc on ballistics solutions, we wouldn't have doppler chronographs, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

[NiteQwill]

People get what they want from the hobby in whatever way they want? Maybe?

In any event, if people were all wired the same - we wouldn't have ballistics calculators, have a better understanding of multi-bc on ballistics solutions, we wouldn't have doppler chronographs, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Sure. It's just boring AF. I enjoy sending rounds downrange, not turning a wrench. YMMV.

 

[Slides]

How does weight on the action effect the barrel whip???

Go back to basics, what makes the vertical barrel response in the first place? Resistance to linear rearward recoil due to vertical offset mass creating a torque impulse back into the barrel. The existing vertical whip is the barrel twisting around the inertia of the stock, if you balance or vary that inertia above line or bore you reduce the effect. If you fire a bare action/barrel on greased V blocks there will very little barrel response.

TBH I think if it wasn't for the fudd law that was in bench rest/F class about having your objective lens a bees dick above the barrel people would have tried true neutral balanced recoil stocks with the barrel/action relatively lower in the assembly, but that does remove the ability to run meaningful positive compensation for long range too.

 

[Maurygold]

Go back to basics, what makes the vertical barrel response in the first place? Resistance to linear rearward recoil due to vertical offset mass creating a torque impulse back into the barrel. The existing vertical whip is the barrel twisting around the inertia of the stock, if you balance or vary that inertia above line or bore you reduce the effect. If you fire a bare action/barrel on greased V blocks there will very little barrel response.

TBH I think if it wasn't for the fudd law that was in bench rest/F class about having your objective lens a bees dick above the barrel people would have tried true neutral balanced recoil stocks with the barrel/action relatively lower in the assembly, but that does remove the ability to run meaningful positive compensation for long range too.

No. Impulse resonance creates whip. Whip is not the barrel moving in some different relation to the stock and no marginal mass added to the rings will make a difference. Why else would people use barrel tuners on their barrel ends?

 

[Macht]

No. Impulse resonance creates whip. Whip is not the barrel moving in some different relation to the stock and no marginal mass added to the rings will make a difference. Why else would people use barrel tuners on their barrel ends?

Incorrect, Slides' explanation was spot on. Offset between system CG and breech load is the primary driver of lateral barrel motion. Hence why the Mann barrel exists.

 

[Maurygold]

Incorrect, Slides' explanation was spot on. Offset between system CG and breech load is the primary driver of lateral barrel motion. Hence why the Mann barrel exists.

Lateral barrel motion - okay. But not vertical barrel whip. Haven’t seen a Mann barrel when any precision match of any kind ever but seen plenty of tuners.

 

[Macht]

Lateral barrel motion - okay. But not vertical barrel whip. Haven’t seen a Mann barrel when any precision match of any kind ever but seen plenty of tuners.

Lateral, meaning not axial. That includes vertical motion. Fundamental physics exists, we don't need to count the number of people hoping some extra mass on the muzzle will solve all their problems.

 

[Maurygold]

Lateral, meaning not axial. That includes vertical motion. Fundamental physics exists, we don't need to count the number of people hoping some extra mass on the muzzle will solve all their problems.

So you think adding some mystery mass to the rings is more beneficial for people to shooting small groups than a tuner???

 

[Slides]

Lateral barrel motion - okay. But not vertical barrel whip. Haven’t seen a Mann barrel when any precision match of any kind ever but seen plenty of tuners.

Barrel tuners working is based on the same physics that makes the whip response. This stuff is at best diploma level balance of forces.


I'm curious then if you believe the whip is the same if we are firing and have zeroed the rifle in microgravity like the international space station and turn the stock 180 degrees about the bore relative to the target and fire again? Which way does it respond and print loads relative to charge weight/tuner movement? Is phase the same on target, what if we go 90 degrees?

Perhaps you are thinking of the radial waves that pass back and forth along the barrel from initial case expansion.

Explain to me clearly how a non radial or in line axial response is generated in a barrel without an external constraint or unbalanced force? Barrel sitting in orbit if you want, completely symmetrical action, how is a tunable whip (not a radial wave that creates very small variance in bore diameter as it travels) introduced? That's what you are suggesting.

 

[Slides]

So you think adding some mystery mass to the rings is more beneficial for people to shooting small groups than a tuner???

For a sporter rifle it very well may be. On an F class gun they are now relying on barrel whip to tune loads to the upswing for lower vertical dispersion at distance so probably wouldn't bother.

 

[Maurygold]

For a sporter rifle it very well may be. On an F class gun they are now relying on barrel whip to tune loads to the upswing for lower vertical dispersion at distance so probably wouldn't bother.

Please show me one person at a competitive level doing what you suggested and are tuning their systems for torque in the chassis by adding weight above the bore??

Whip is a resonance (why it presents in nodes) from impulse not rearward torque when the rifle recoils. If that’s true how would a free recoiling rifle have whip?

 

[carbonbased]

I think affixing a hanging tuner to torque-tested action screws…would be interesting.





Had some of you there for a second, didn’t I?

Forgive my jest, kind sirs.

But seriously, I think you should write up a proper paper with hypotheses, group sizes, data, conclusions, etc. I’ve seen a couple threads like this that get, uh, rather religious.

A paper (with a concise abstract!) that is about pushing the boundaries of knowledge by an author with nothing to prove, all the while being honest what what the author doesn’t know and what he is unsure about…well, that would be…refreshing!

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

If that’s true how would a free recoiling rifle have whip?

You're overlooking the fact that a human is not the only thing that provides resistance to recoil. As soon as the primer ignites, it's pushing back against the bolt face which starts a chain of reactions.

Looking at just the stock or chassis.....that part of the rifle wants to remain still but the recoil lug, actions screws, and friction between the contact of the action don't allow this.

So, even a free recoiled rifle is already reacting to the rearward motion of the system in many different places before it ever gets to someone or something not allowing the entire rifle to free recoil.


And all theories that involve compensation aren't even able to prove or disprove that those movements at the muzzle happen before the bullet exits or if they are consistent enough to compensate. It's all just theory and sims thus far. The fact that many use tuners isn't of itself enough to prove or disprove the theories are correct. There's plenty of people not using tuners.....and also plenty of other people using methods that have been proven to absolutely not work.

There's countless examples in human history where a majority of the entire world believed something that wasn't true. So we can't just keep saying "but a lot of people use them" as proof something works.

 

[obx22]

You're overlooking the fact that a human is not the only thing that provides resistance to recoil. As soon as the primer ignites, it's pushing back against the bolt face which starts a chain of reactions.

Looking at just the stock or chassis.....that part of the rifle wants to remain still but the recoil lug, actions screws, and friction between the contact of the action don't allow this.

So, even a free recoiled rifle is already reacting to the rearward motion of the system in many different places before it ever gets to someone or something not allowing the entire rifle to free recoil.


And all theories that involve compensation aren't even able to prove or disprove that those movements at the muzzle happen before the bullet exits or if they are consistent enough to compensate. It's all just theory and sims thus far. The fact that many use tuners isn't of itself enough to prove or disprove the theories are correct. There's plenty of people not using tuners.....and also plenty of other people using methods that have been proven to absolutely not work.

There's countless examples in human history where a majority of the entire world believed something that wasn't true. So we can't just keep saying "but a lot of people use them" as proof something works.

Wow, this thread has my thought processes taking a turn…
So if you were able to balance say a barricade rifle, with equal mass above bore line as below, what would be the best way to get identical recoil characteristics from the forend on a bag vs a bipod? For that matter, how do you get true linear (bore line) recoil out of a bipod anyway? Have a two piece Arca sandwich plate that moves like a drawer slide?

 

[iceng]

Im sceptical, but very interested in this.

What i will add is... does a different scope on thr same rifle produce the same tune (harmonic) ??

If it does. Does that mean your scope choice effects accuracy ? If not, does it mean scopes have no impact on accuracy ? (Optical clarity withstanding)...
1" mm tube vs 30mm vs 34. What about 56 vs 50mm objective lens ??

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Wow, this thread has my thought processes taking a turn…
So if you were able to balance say a barricade rifle, with equal mass above bore line as below, what would be the best way to get identical recoil characteristics from the forend on a bag vs a bipod? For that matter, how do you get true linear (bore line) recoil out of a bipod anyway? Have a two piece Arca sandwich plate that moves like a drawer slide?

Not that it answers your question, but an interesting comparison would be to mount the optic on the side of the rifle and shoot it with the rifle laying on it's side. Compare how tuners and whatnot affect things compared to rifle being shot normally.

As when asked why people don't attempt positive compensation for lateral dispersion, things like the recoil lug are given as reasons why there is a larger vertical component to compensate.

If that reason is true, then positioning the recoil lug on the side should exhibit more lateral dispersion that could be compensated.

 

[E. Bryant]

If you fire a bare action/barrel on greased V blocks there will very little barrel response.

Is this a hypothesis, or is there validation data (or at least verification through a sufficiently sophisticated verification method such as CAE) to support this as fact?

 

[Slides]

Please show me one person at a competitive level doing what you suggested and are tuning their systems for torque in the chassis by adding weight above the bore??

Whip is a resonance (why it presents in nodes) from impulse not rearward torque when the rifle recoils. If that’s true how would a free recoiling rifle have whip?

Why don't you watch the video from Tim in Texas in the positive compensation thread.

There is feedback on this forum and in Hornady, AB and (regardless of what you thought of his earlier videos) Eric Cortina's interviews, many of these guys working on OEM/military/artillery development with software licences worth tens of thousands of dollars. The vertical response is entirely a result of the eccentric resistance to barrel/action recoil. They describe it, there are videos and graphics of simulation and motion amplification video of it floating around.


You still haven't proposed an alternate mechanism for the induction of this response either. Guys running minimum spec chambers, neck sized only brass snug in chamber with best dies and projectiles with effectively zero run out, where does this off axis energy come from if not the inertia of the attachments? Why does it express in the plane of offset mass as opposed to any other?


Let me guess "it's harmonics bro, trust me bro God told me". A gong or wind chime doesn't ring unless you smack the c*nt with energy in that direction.

 

[Maurygold]

Why don't you watch the video from Tim in Texas in the positive compensation thread.

There is feedback on this forum and in Hornady, AB and (regardless of what you thought of his earlier videos) Eric Cortina's interviews, many of these guys working on OEM/military/artillery development with software licences worth tens of thousands of dollars. The vertical response is entirely a result of the eccentric resistance to barrel/action recoil. They describe it, there are videos and graphics of simulation and motion amplification video of it floating around.


You still haven't proposed an alternate mechanism for the induction of this response either. Guys running minimum spec chambers, neck sized only brass snug in chamber with best dies and projectiles with effectively zero run out, where does this off axis energy come from if not the inertia of the attachments? Why does it express in the plane of offset mass as opposed to any other?


Let me guess "it's harmonics bro, trust me bro God told me". A gong or wind chime doesn't ring unless you smack the c*nt with energy in that direction.

Resonance from impulse. You don’t like my answer and think a heavy scope will change your group sizes. I 100000% disagree and think action screw tuning makes more sense but still. No one does that….. because it’s the least likely thing to help vs a tuner. Seriously go to a benchrest match and tell me who is adjusting weights on their scope. NO ONE. NOT EVER. it’s not even a theory it’s completely unsupported by any science ever done and no one does it.

Have you ever shot a load ladder?? Completely debunks this the way the nose moves. Up AND down. That’s a node from resonance not recoil

 

[Maurygold]

Im sceptical, but very interested in this.

What i will add is... does a different scope on thr same rifle produce the same tune (harmonic) ??

If it does. Does that mean your scope choice effects accuracy ? If not, does it mean scopes have no impact on accuracy ? (Optical clarity withstanding)...
1" mm tube vs 30mm vs 34. What about 56 vs 50mm objective lens ??

Let’s ask the benchrest guys how they tune their rifle using different scopes and rings. Oh wait - they don’t. I wonder why?

 

[Maurygold]

You're overlooking the fact that a human is not the only thing that provides resistance to recoil. As soon as the primer ignites, it's pushing back against the bolt face which starts a chain of reactions.

Looking at just the stock or chassis.....that part of the rifle wants to remain still but the recoil lug, actions screws, and friction between the contact of the action don't allow this.

So, even a free recoiled rifle is already reacting to the rearward motion of the system in many different places before it ever gets to someone or something not allowing the entire rifle to free recoil.


And all theories that involve compensation aren't even able to prove or disprove that those movements at the muzzle happen before the bullet exits or if they are consistent enough to compensate. It's all just theory and sims thus far. The fact that many use tuners isn't of itself enough to prove or disprove the theories are correct. There's plenty of people not using tuners.....and also plenty of other people using methods that have been proven to absolutely not work.

There's countless examples in human history where a majority of the entire world believed something that wasn't true. So we can't just keep saying "but a lot of people use them" as proof something works.

You can when they proposed alternative is used by absolutely zero people ever vs a commonly accepted norm. Barrel movement absolutely happen before the bullet leaves the barrel how else do you get vertical dispersion through a node.

 

[Maurygold]

Is this a hypothesis, or is there validation data (or at least verification through a sufficiently sophisticated verification method such as CAE) to support this as fact?

Myth and not true. If it were true the amount of force applied from behind the gun during recoil. The force from the shooter, would change impact based on the variable amount of force applied. But yet, it does not.

 

[Macht]

Is this a hypothesis, or is there validation data (or at least verification through a sufficiently sophisticated verification method such as CAE) to support this as fact?

There's data out there for that, I can think of two conference papers off the top of my head. FEA as well as measured movement. Both are paywalled though, in different years of the proceedings from the International Symposium on Ballistics.

ETA: After looking them up again, neither gives exactly what you're looking for. One compares a Mann barrel to an AR, where you have large differences in mounting and barrel thickness to contend with and the other is FEA that doesn't accurately account for the degree of mass offset (the mass is there, but the CG is in the wrong location).

 

[Maurygold]

There's data out there for that, I can think of two conference papers off the top of my head. FEA as well as measured movement. Both are paywalled though, in different years of the proceedings from the International Symposium on Ballistics.

Link them. Sounds non peer-reviewed. But I would like to see anyone proposing how a dynamic recoil force is producing consistent and repeatable sin wave dispersion.

 

[Macht]

Link them. Sounds non peer-reviewed. But I would like to see anyone proposing how a dynamic recoil force is producing consistent and repeatable sin wave dispersion.

Well that's the fun part, barrels don't move in a repeating sin wave until after the bullet is gone. It seems pretty clear you've outrun your headlights when it comes to your understanding of physics. Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[Maurygold]

Well that's the fun part, barrels don't move in a repeating sin wave until after the bullet is gone. It seems pretty clear you're outrun your headlights when it comes to your understanding of physics. Welcome to the ignore list.

Then explain how a grain ladder test goes up and down on target?

I shoot much more than I read books and if you think that means you can’t have an intelligent conversation with me and don’t want to provide the literature I’m asking to read and your citing then please block me. But I’m looking at real world examples and practice while people talk about theory and shit no one has ever done like it’s fact.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

You can when they proposed alternative is used by absolutely zero people ever vs a commonly accepted norm. Barrel movement absolutely happen before the bullet leaves the barrel how else do you get vertical dispersion through a node.

Vertical dispersion and nodes mysteriously disappear when bullets are shot over doppler that tracks the bullet during its entire flight and takes things into account that you can't measure with a chrono and target.

Almost everything you see with targets showing supposed nodes goes away when you shoot longer shot strings that show what the dispersion for your barrel/ammo actually is.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Then explain how a grain ladder test goes up and down on target?

I shoot much more than I read books and if you think that means you can’t have an intelligent conversation with me and don’t want to provide the literature I’m asking to read and your citing then please block me. But I’m looking at real world examples and practice while people talk about theory and shit no one has ever done like it’s fact.

Consider this, if you successfully compensate at 1k yds like F Open shooters do, your 100yd groups have to be angularly larger at 100yds than they are at 1k yds.

Have you seen anyone ever show that? The math on how large the group size needs to be at 100yds is very simple when you have the speeds of the fastest and slowest rounds leaving the muzzle and how much tighter they group at 1k than they should based on velocity. Most of the time, you should have a pretty bad vertical dispersion around 1moa (and sometimes larger) at 100yds for the fastest and slowest rounds to converge at 1k yds.

Yet when the same rifles are shot at 100yds, they always shoot tiny little groups. These are the things always ignored. People pick the "facts" that support their theory, and never look at the ones that don't.

Just like no one ever goes back and tests their "bad" loads they saw in load development.

 

[Maurygold]

Consider this, if you successfully compensate at 1k yds like F Open shooters do, your 100yd groups have to be angularly larger at 100yds than they are at 1k yds.

Have you seen anyone ever show that? The math on how large the group size needs to be at 100yds is very simple when you have the speeds of the fastest and slowest rounds leaving the muzzle and how much tighter they group at 1k than they should based on velocity. Most of the time, you should have a pretty bad vertical dispersion around 1moa (and sometimes larger) at 100yds for the fastest and slowest rounds to converge at 1k yds.

Yet when the same rifles are shot at 100yds, they always shoot tiny little groups. These are the things always ignored. People pick the "facts" that support their theory, and never look at the ones that don't.

Just like no one ever goes back and tests their "bad" loads they saw in load development.

I’m not talking about group sizes that was never mentioned. You’re describing the concept of convergence but that doesn’t change the vertical dispersion you see in ladder testing. (That’s not group sizing)