Bullet stabilization, group size, range?

I agree the idea that a rifle may be more accurate at long range than it is at short range seems unlikely. Having said that, I too have seen evidence that would support this theory. Maybe it's precession, but yes, I've had rifles that don't seem to shoot very well at 100 yards shoot quite well at 300 and farther. It's as though the bullet is travelling in a spiral path and the group is derived by where in the spiral it met with a target.

Now another explanation for these rounds that seem to go to sleep could be just luck of the draw. Maybe we just get lucky sometimes. Flyers can go either way right. Into the group or out.

On the other hand, using good long range bullets and suitable hand loads... I have never seen a rifle shoot well at 100 that did not shoot well at long range. But I have a possible explanation for those who have experienced it.

I think this might be possible when the barrel twist rate is just barely adequate for the bullet and velocity. What you'd probably find is the rifle could shoot very well or even excellent at close range or even at long range under no or low wind conditions, but once the wind starts blowing, the bullet would loose stability and accuracy would get sloppy.
 
tootall said:
Great video of the AK-74 cycling!

The reason for my initial question was a conversation with another member.
He said that a 50BMG takes a while to stabilize, and that a 2 or 3 inch group at 100Y was not a concern, as it will tighten up.
And it will eventually becoming a tackdriver at long range.
I dont see that happening...
Click to expand...

That is funny.

The precession you sometimes see.. the whole sleeping bullet thing.... can and does happen BUT the change in net MOA is small.

If you want 1/2 min at say 600m, it is not going to start at 1 or 2 MOA at 100yds. maybe you have 0.6 or 0.55 MOA at 100yds, then things settle down and things track properly.

You can find a load that shoots amazing at SR but tanks at LR. You will never find a tackdriving LR load that doesn't shoot really well at SR - the net MOA may be a little off but heavy emphasis on LITTLE.

Jerry
 
BadAsMo said:
I agree the idea that a rifle may be more accurate at long range than it is at short range seems unlikely. Having said that, I too have seen evidence that would support this theory. Maybe it's precession, but yes, I've had rifles that don't seem to shoot very well at 100 yards shoot quite well at 300 and farther. It's as though the bullet is travelling in a spiral path and the group is derived by where in the spiral it met with a target.

Now another explanation for these rounds that seem to go to sleep could be just luck of the draw. Maybe we just get lucky sometimes. Flyers can go either way right. Into the group or out.

On the other hand, using good long range bullets and suitable hand loads... I have never seen a rifle shoot well at 100 that did not shoot well at long range. But I have a possible explanation for those who have experienced it.

I think this might be possible when the barrel twist rate is just barely adequate for the bullet and velocity. What you'd probably find is the rifle could shoot very well or even excellent at close range or even at long range under no or low wind conditions, but once the wind starts blowing, the bullet would loose stability and accuracy would get sloppy.
Click to expand...


100 yard groups are a waste of powder for finding loads that will work at longer range. My books are full of great short range loads that did not work past 500.

Twist and stability have nothing to do with it. If a bullet is stable at 100 it will be stable all the way to the moon. It will gain stability as it slows down at longer range (compressed air density).
 
"Twist and stability have nothing to do with it. If a bullet is stable at 100 it will be stable all the way to the moon. It will gain stability as it slows down at longer range (compressed air density)." True, mainly because the bullet is still spinning almost as fast as when it left the barrel and the velocity drops considerably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom