coyotemaster Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 I find its always best to have alittle experiment at 100yds, in theory as you click left,right and up down the bullet should do the same by 1/4inch. The better the quality of scope the more likely it will be accurate,some scopes need a little tap on the adjustment **** some don't. Ah yes Redgum, I recall the good? old days of driving and spotting for hours to find a sleeping Coyote, then ranging him and dialing in the scope(doping the scope) only to find it didn't take all the adjustment. Really frustrating and tapping the scope was not an option because even at 400 yds. Wily has pretty good hearing. I pay whatever I need to now to have a "repeatable" scope that goes where it's told and comes right back to zero. Some scopes are notoriously bad---usually the less expensive Chinese jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrelsniffer Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sorry i dont buy that! heard it from a few in my my target days (when many also muttered rude comments under thier breath) . How the heck can a bullet become more accurate at range once it leaves the barrel? how can it reduce and centre? My thoughts are its a cop out to fluke, just as the wind can ruin a group it must also make one, who would say "yep i shot well today by fluke" . I beieve totally that a guy might not be able to shoot as good at shorter range as he might further out as the mind comes into it but not a gun and i aint ever heard any hard science to back that theory up. Hold onto it sure, get better no i dont buy it I once tried some 75gn Amax and no way could they group at 100yds.....Yet when i tried at 300 on a 12inch steel plate..bang on..took them eventually out to 640yds and again was bang on...yes i was puzzled...but because of that never used them since but also heard they only stabilised past 100yds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) It sounds good but what could make it draw inwards to centre predictably the same each time? find me a combo that wont hold a decent group at 100 in anyones hands yet shot bugholes way further out consistantly then i might be drawn into this "theory" more- explain it with hard science even- i have never come across that gun and a i certainly aint owned one. That said i have owned a few medicore guns that recorded great groups at long range by holding onto that mediocre accuraccy very,very well by using good bullets mainly I haven't got the knowlege to explain it with hard science but I can do some investigations... I'll drop a line to Bryan Litz and see if he will proffer an explanation.. In the meantime... this is my understanding... It isn't getting drawn inwards, it is just becoming stable.. Imagine a spinning top or coin even... when you first transfer all that energy into it, be it with fingers, string or even better, one of those whips the kids used to use in victorian times, the top doesn't instantly stand still, upright and spin perfectly... it wobbles a little, moves a little then settles down and spins nice and steadily... that's because as you transfer that energy you are applying all sorts of latteral forces which will effectively knock the top off ballance, it takes a short time for the gyroscopic forces being created within the top to overcome the other forces and thus stabilise the top. then once it has lost enough energy so that the gyroscopic forces can't overcome everything else, it starts to wobble and eventually falls over. Exactly the same is happening to a bullet... the latteral forces being applied by the rifling are astronomical, once it exits the muzzlke, it takes a fraction of a second for the gyroscopic forces to overcome everything else. Some bullets take longer than others. Edited February 15, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I haven't got the knowlege to explain it with hard science but I can do some investigations... I'll drop a line to Bryan Litz and see if he will proffer an explanation.. In the meantime... this is my understanding... It isn't getting drawn inwards, it is just becoming stable.. Imagine a spinning top or coin even... when you first transfer all that energy into it, be it with fingers, string or even better, one of those whips the kids used to use in victorian times, the top doesn't instantly stand still, upright and spin perfectly... it wobbles a little, moves a little then settles down and spins nice and steadily... that's because as you transfer that energy you are applying all sorts of latteral forces which will effectively knock the top off ballance, it takes a short time for the gyroscopic forces being created within the top to overcome the other forces and thus stabilise the top. then once it has lost enough energy so that the gyroscopic forces can't overcome everything else, it starts to wobble and eventually falls over. Exactly the same is happening to a bullet... the latteral forces being applied by the rifling are astronomical, once it exits the muzzlke, it takes a fraction of a second for the gyroscopic forces to overcome everything else. Some bullets take longer than others. you cannot garnatee were the coin actually stabilises and finally settles. Try it! This is were the whole "theory" falls to bits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I once tried some 75gn Amax and no way could they group at 100yds.....Yet when i tried at 300 on a 12inch steel plate..bang on..took them eventually out to 640yds and again was bang on...yes i was puzzled...but because of that never used them since but also heard they only stabilised past 100yds. If they keep 2" @ 100 they would be among the very worst (i cant remember getting any worse than this out of a load) BUT if they kept that std they could be able to stay on that plate of 12" (in theory obviously) to 600yds and 300 should be a doddle. This might not be true of a load that shot bugholes at 100 yds in practice, ability to hold onto a std is not the same as short range presision. This is why selecting the best load at 100yds is a waste of time if you want to shoot at 500yds you need to do your testing there. My point is you wont find a gun that shoots 2 moa @ said 100yds yet gives 1/2 moa at 500 with any reliability- Fluke yes, average no chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) you cannot garnatee were the coin actually stabilises and finally settles. Try it! This is were the whole "theory" falls to bits But if you spin a coin with your fingers the latteral forces are being applied randomly, with different amounts of pressure each time and at differing angles and a-symetrically as well as being unrepeatable. A rifle crown is a perfect circle and the latteral forces will always be applied at exactly 90 degrees to the direction of the bulet travel and will be symetrical and repeatable... the wobble is what causes the larger groupings at shorter distances, once the wobble dissipates, the bullet flight becomes smoother and therefore 'predictable,' all we are interested at the target is predictablity, during the wobbling phase the poi isn't as predictable therefore you get slightly larger groups. You are confusing flight path with predictability, in this instance they aren't necessarily the same A very good example is an arrow in flight.. slightly different forces at play but it will convey the idea. When an arrow is loosed, the bowstring compresses the arrow and it starts to flex, quite violently at first... this can be seen in this video... It then continues to flex during it's flight but this diminishes quite quickly until aerodynamics overcome the wobble and the arrow stabilises.. more of the effect can be seen in this video The movement at the tip is what, over an inch... so if you put a target 3 feet in front of the bow, it would be impossible (other than by chance) to predict exactly where within that inch the arrow would strike. However, by the time the arrow reaches a target 60 metres away, that tip movement will be next to nothing and so the potential group size would be tiny and then wholly dependent on the skill of the archer and other 'external influences' It is physically impossible to have a bullet that is 'Perfectly' round, 'perfectly' concentric, 'perfectly' symetrically and therefore as it exits the muzzle it WILL NOT be spinning 'perfectly' about its axis... that is until the gyroscopic effect takes over.. Edited February 15, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 My point is you wont find a gun that shoots 2 moa @ said 100yds yet gives 1/2 moa at 500 with any reliability- Fluke yes, average no chance! No, but you may find som e bullets that do when fired from your gun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 No, but you may find som e bullets that do when fired from your gun! Dont get that comment unless its meant as some sort of insult? If i ever take up archery i shall watch those vidios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrelsniffer Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) If they keep 2" @ 100 they would be among the very worst (i cant remember getting any worse than this out of a load) BUT if they kept that std they could be able to stay on that plate of 12" (in theory obviously) to 600yds and 300 should be a doddle. This might not be true of a load that shot bugholes at 100 yds in practice, ability to hold onto a std is not the same as short range presision. This is why selecting the best load at 100yds is a waste of time if you want to shoot at 500yds you need to do your testing there. My point is you wont find a gun that shoots 2 moa @ said 100yds yet gives 1/2 moa at 500 with any reliability- Fluke yes, average no chance! Your right with 2 inch versus 12 inch plate at 600 but this was not a grouping and 3-4 inch..was that bad i didnt even think i would hit the tgt at 300,but having heard about some bullets not stabilising straight away and saved me pulling them when home i shot them at said ranges with very safe backstop and was amazed..but still that was last time i used them..now use 64gn bergers way better. And my rifle is very accurate with other homeloaded ammo..so puzzling. Edited February 15, 2012 by barrelsniffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Dont get that comment unless its meant as some sort of insult? If i ever take up archery i shall watch those vidios surely as you want the theory proving you should watch the videos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Your right with 2 inch versus 12 inch plate at 600 but this was not a grouping and 3-4 inch..was that bad i didnt even think i would hit the tgt at 300 but when i did tried further and still hit..? i only fired the first few at 300 so i didnt have pull them but was surprised when they hit and gobsmacked when at 600+ And my rifle is very accurate with other homeloaded ammo..so puzzling. Never seen groups that bad unless there was a serious fault in the gun or shooter, regardless of ammo! Can only put that down to sheer fluke. If your saying you can repete this time and again at those ranges with a gun that shoots that bad at 100yds then i simply do not believe you as it goes against all that is known. I once saw a guy knock down some small plates at 600yds with an old Enfield with open sights, the shooter was wetting his pants with exitement (so were the others who new about the hidden shooter with his f-class gun shooting actually them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 surely as you want the theory proving you should watch the videos Just watched them it shows an arrow flexing, not suprising considering the lack of support along it length and the forces of that string. No relivence to a bullet fired down a gun barrel Is someone trying to say bullets bend and flex on thier way to target? - this is getting a bit daft if so. If this (increasing accuracy) was fact there would be a ton of good direct and quality evidence out there about the how and why no need to involve spinning coins or archery in the discusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 i have a nail gun, if i stand on the roof and fire the nail, it comes out of the gun spinning, then after 20m stabilises and dose the next 20m flying straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrelsniffer Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Never seen groups that bad unless there was a serious fault in the gun or shooter, regardless of ammo! Can only put that down to sheer fluke. If your saying you can repete this time and again at those ranges with a gun that shoots that bad at 100yds then i simply do not believe you as it goes against all that is known. I once saw a guy knock down some small plates at 600yds with an old Enfield with open sights, the shooter was wetting his pants with exitement (so were the others who new about the hidden shooter with his f-class gun shooting actually them) Nothing wrong with rifle or me (shooter) you don't know me, anyway ref can i repeat this time and again i didn't say that and why would i ? and its that reason ie sxxt grouping that i never used 75gn Amax again..and now use as said other bullets which are spot on accurate. All i was saying is what happened on that day with them rounds...END.. Don't want be sat here for hrs explaining like on other posts ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Bench rest shooters here use a term "going to sleep" in regards to bullet stabilization. It is commonly held that flat base bullets go to sleep sooner than Boat tails, but either way the accuracy is not terrible at 100 yds. BUT the boat tail may group better at 400 yds and have the BC advantage due to form factor. I am sure there are physics at work here I don't fully comprehend but I am assuming the drag on a flat base stabilizes it faster but also slows it down quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Bench rest shooters here use a term "going to sleep" in regards to bullet stabilization. It is commonly held that flat base bullets go to sleep sooner than Boat tails, but either way the accuracy is not terrible at 100 yds. BUT the boat tail may group better at 400 yds and have the BC advantage due to form factor. I am sure there are physics at work here I don't fully comprehend but I am assuming the drag on a flat base stabilizes it faster but also slows it down quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 A very quick google finds this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pF8W5liSRc&feature=player_embedded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Dont get that comment unless its meant as some sort of insult? If i ever take up archery i shall watch those vidios Not an insult at all... you keep saying 'guns' being inacurate... we aren't talking about guns, we are talking about bullets! Different bullets have different characteristics once fired, some will stabilise quickly and give good short range groups, some will take longer and give pants short range groups but good long range groups and therefore predictability. You wanted me to prove the theory, I have tried, you just don't want to listen.. With regards to the arrows, I haven't intimated that bullets flex, what I am trying to show is that it is possible (in different ways) to be totally unstable and therefore innacurate at short range and become stable and accurate at long range.. A very quick google finds this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pF8W5liSRc&feature=player_embedded Fantastic find Catweazle... getting fed up of repeating myself but no doubt Kent will find something wrong with what you have found! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 A very quick google finds this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pF8W5liSRc&feature=player_embedded That looks very good and seems to illustrate the theory put forwards. The worrying bit is the scale againt the 1 degree marker. surely that cannot be correct scale? Now bear in mind i have seen the vidio graphic now explain why as other than that is just an animation that could just as easy be made up. The scale seems to suggest the bullet flies with a wing and a prayer before 200yds. I have actually used 7mm Berger VLD bullets and they didn't shoot as wildly as seems suggested by the animation at shorter range. I go back to my origonal statement. "I have never seen a gun consistantly shoot better at increasing ranges" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 That looks very good and seems to illustrate the theory put forwards. The worrying bit is the scale againt the 1 degree marker. surely that cannot be correct scale? Now bear in mind i have seen the vidio graphic now explain why as other than that is just an animation that could just as easy be made up. The scale seems to suggest the bullet flies with a wing and a prayer before 200yds. I have actually used 7mm Berger VLD bullets and they didn't shoot as wildly as seems suggested by the animation at shorter range. I go back to my origonal statement. "I have never seen a gun consistantly shoot better at increasing ranges" I give up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Bench rest shooters here use a term "going to sleep" in regards to bullet stabilization. It is commonly held that flat base bullets go to sleep sooner than Boat tails, but either way the accuracy is not terrible at 100 yds. BUT the boat tail may group better at 400 yds and have the BC advantage due to form factor. I am sure there are physics at work here I don't fully comprehend but I am assuming the drag on a flat base stabilizes it faster but also slows it down quicker. I believe the flat base gets a different type of push up the barrel due to the shape of it base and is easier to manufacture to tollerance as it effectively has less margin for error on its rear end dimentions. Boat tails have higher bc and as such are less effected by external factors in flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nothing wrong with rifle or me (shooter) you don't know me, anyway ref can i repeat this time and again i didn't say that and why would i ? and its that reason ie sxxt grouping that i never used 75gn Amax again..and now use as said other bullets which are spot on accurate. All i was saying is what happened on that day with them rounds...END.. Don't want be sat here for hrs explaining like on other posts ? No i said i have never seen groups that bad unless there was a serious fault with gun OR shooter, thats just a statement of fact (i havent seen it outside those circumstances). It wasn't a jibe at your shooting "that is an unknown". I have seen some terrible groups put in by bad shooters and bad guns but never have i had even the very worst ammo shoot that bad in a c/fire at 100yds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 "I have never seen a gun consistantly shoot better at increasing ranges" Have a look around the web, there are plenty of people writing that their rifles shoot (example) 1moa at 100yds but 0.75moa at 300 or further. I don't have any experience of this, I just suggested a possible reason for the results other people have had. It seems that it's a well known effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 No i said i have never seen groups that bad unless there was a serious fault with gun OR shooter, thats just a statement of fact (i havent seen it outside those circumstances). It wasn't a jibe at your shooting "that is an unknown". I have seen some terrible groups put in by bad shooters and bad guns but never have i had even the very worst ammo shoot that bad in a c/fire at 100yds. You obviously haven't had much exposure then Kent... My Tikka T3 6.5 shooting 125gn Nosler Partitions over 40gn of Varget cloverleafs at 100 yards and is sub MOA at 200 yards... consistently... and yet, if I take the Predator 8 moderator off, the group opens up to 4" at 100 yards... yes you read right.... 4".. put the mod back on and it cloverleafs again! Last April at Bisley I was using 155gn SMKs in my TRG for the first time... we couldn't get it to group better than 2" at 100 yards (175gn SMKs will pretty much go through the same hole... consistently @ 100yds) Unfortunately, that's all I had with me so went into the club match expecting to struggle to get on paper... working on what I think is your theory, a group size of 2" @ 100 would have to open up to 12" or more at 600 yards and yet I managed 9 bulls, 8 of which were V-bulls and one flyer... The V-bull is a tad over 3". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Have a look around the web, there are plenty of people writing that their rifles shoot (example) 1moa at 100yds but 0.75moa at 300 or further. I don't have any experience of this, I just suggested a possible reason for the results other people have had. It seems that it's a well known effect. I don't want to appear difficult on this and have myself recorded better measured competitive results at 500+ than the same gun ever produced at shorter range - but never consistantly better at range, only as one offs. Its nice to think there was something special about those guns or the ammo i produced for them but in fairness i think it fluke. Thats why benchresters work on average groups. I would realy like to see a good explaination of the principles and science behind it, or even better shoot a gun that did this with certain ammo. I know some top shots who believe it and others that also think its a joke. I am just one of those who doesn't but only because nobody has ever explained it with the hard facts as to why. You would think with all the papers out there this had been done. Cyotemaster sent me a paper recently that made my head hurt, i am sure something like that exists for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.