Why groups at long range are the same as close range.

[Munkey1973]

man.... I think that people who believe this idea that certain bullets stabilize more so down range (than they would at close range), are the same guys you meet at the range who have their rifles zeroed for 100 yards and they are absolutely convinced that their "bullets rise" when they leave the muzzle..... they are truely convinced of this because they are shooting 1/8 to 1/4 inch higher when they shoot at 50 yards. They don't understand that the scope's POA is a ray (i.e straight line) and that the bullet path is a decreasing non-linear function. Because of what they just witnessed, they believe that the bullet went up... hit a peak at 50 yards... then it started to come back down and hit the point of aim at 100 yards.

No... that is not how it happened.

FUD LORE that bullets rise when they leave the barrel !

Its hard to explain to them that bullet begins to fall the instant it leaves the barrel.... Likewise, it is equally difficult to explain to them that a bullet looses it stability the moment it leaves the barrel as well.

More FUD LORE that bullets gain stability in flight !

What is next ?

Will someone try and convince me that certain projectiles gain velocity while in flight? That they "build up" speed and travel faster at 500 yards than they do at 100 yards?

 

[Maple57]

This thread started off illustrating how a bullet can orbit around the centerline of trajectory. Nothing was claimed that the bullet somehow migrates toward the centerline over distance.

Yet the past several pages have mistakenly migrated the discussion back to that magical center line.

Just as a top oscillates off axis in a predictable cycle, why would anyone assume that a bullet cannot do the same, and that oscillation results in an orbital path as illustrated by the photo and by the air rifle video. Both examples illustrate that it happens.

You can argue about it all you want, but it can explain why so many people feel so strongly about tighter groups at distance than close groups would suggest.

Its not that the bullet is on center, it's just orbiting about that center in a consistent manner. Move the target forward or back a few feet and the group would form along a different point about that orbital radius.

If the velocity remains constant, the predictability of that orbital cycle will be more consistent. If the velocity varies, the group will oscillate in random rates and spread about the entire orbital radius on the target.

 

[keegs]

There may also be a rhythm to the spiral where it goes into and out of phase at different distances.

This comment right here is what I would like a way better explanation on. Not the condescending drivel you just replied with about peoples reading comprehension.

Next will you be proving Bryan Litz wrong or not? He has issued a shoot through challenge, it’s up on the accurate forum.

 

[Maple57]

Litz does not need to be wrong for this point to be right.

Stop thinking every bullet hit occurs immediately along the directional center line of the axis of flight and it starts to make sense.

 

[keegs]

Actually he would have to be wrong. Go read his shoot through challenge. I’ll sum it up for you. He said groups don’t shrink at distance. You are saying they do, and you have proven this. It’s in your first post.

Next are you going to explain to me what I asked or not?

 

[Maple57]

Actually he would have to be wrong. Go read his shoot through challenge. I’ll sum it up for you. He said groups don’t shrink at distance. You are saying they do, and you have proven this. It’s in your first post.

Next are you going to explain to me what I asked or not?

it depends how you define groups.

This is an example of waves. One has the same frequency as the other, one has a different frequency.

The high and low would describe what Litz calls the group.

In both cases there is a distance where the lines are coincident, while other distances where they are not... IE out of phase.

 

[Tokay444]

man.... I think that people who believe this idea that certain bullets stabilize more so down range (than they would at close range), are the same guys you meet at the range who have their rifles zeroed for 100 yards and they are absolutely convinced that their "bullets rise" when they leave the muzzle..... they are truely convinced of this because they are shooting 1/8 to 1/4 inch higher when they shoot at 50 yards. They don't understand that the scope's POA is a ray (i.e straight line) and that the bullet path is a decreasing non-linear function. Because of what they just witnessed, they believe that the bullet went up... hit a peak at 50 yards... then it started to come back down and hit the point of aim at 100 yards.

No... that is not how it happened.

FUD LORE that bullets rise when they leave the barrel !

Its hard to explain to them that bullet begins to fall the instant it leaves the barrel.... Likewise, it is equally difficult to explain to them that a bullet looses it stability the moment it leaves the barrel as well.

More FUD LORE that bullets gain stability in flight !

What is next ?

Will someone try and convince me that certain projectiles gain velocity while in flight? That they "build up" speed and travel faster at 500 yards than they do at 100 yards?

Amen.

 

[Tokay444]

This thread started off illustrating how a bullet can orbit around the centerline of trajectory.

That is absolutely NOT what that image is illustrating. If you genuinely believe that the condensation trail is the actual path of the bullet, I’m afraid you cannot be helped.

 

[keegs]

it depends how you define groups.

This is an example of waves. One has the same frequency as the other, one has a different frequency.

The high and low would describe what Litz calls the group.

In both cases there is a distance where the lines are coincident, while other distances where they are not... IE out of phase.

Sorry to deliver some bad news but both of those diagrams show waves with the exact same frequency. The only difference is the amplitude.

You are attempting to say that the spiral goes in, and out of phase, and if we follow that logic, even a 4moa gun would print a tight bug hole group if according to your theory we placed the target at 190 or 210 or 314m. What ever the magical distance may be. At some point those spirals converge.

How is there more then one way that we define a group? Nothing depends on it. All groups for record are measured the same way.

You still aren’t explaining a thing.

How about I explain it using your frequency theory. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel the speed starts dropping(slower frequency) It continuously drops, meaning those fancy waves you posted become longer, aka more time between points of coincident(to use your words). If it’s continuously taking longer then it would then be safe to assume that the group is opening.

The further you go, the longer the wave, the bigger group.

 

[Tokay444]

I don’t even know how this can be a point of debate.
But I also never thought someone would believe that a bullet orbits a central line of trajectory either.

 

[Potashminer]

I don’t even know how this can be a point of debate.
But I also never thought someone would believe that a bullet orbits a central line of trajectory either.

Maybe a source of confusion comes from some old diagrams in a Hornady manual (I think) - but as I recall, was trying to illustrate that with a poorly balanced bullet, the rifling within the barrel forced the bullet to rotate ("spin") around the centre of it's form, whereas once released from the barrel, the bullet would want to transit to rotate ("spin") around its centre of gravity. I had understood "going to sleep" was the completion of that transition of rotating around centre of form, to centre of gravity. And I believe both of them are within the circumference of that bullet.

Can't loose sight of the rate of rotation, either - is much higher than most realize. 1-12" twist, 2800 fps muzzle velocity = 2,800 rotations per second = 168,000 RPM. I think air molecule friction on rotating bullet skin (now with engraving from that rifling) about the only force working to slow down that rotation, so rotation does not fall off, like the forward velocity due to drag does.

That was the point of those older "Junke" bullet machines - I never did own own, but always thought would be cool - it apparently would show how close that particular bullet's centre of form was to its centre of gravity - so, the more closely aligned they were, the more "precise" that particular bullet would fly. Apparently was used by some shooters to sort or cull bullets for target shooting strings.

 

[Maple57]

Sorry to deliver some bad news but both of those diagrams show waves with the exact same frequency. The only difference is the amplitude.

You are attempting to say that the spiral goes in, and out of phase, and if we follow that logic, even a 4moa gun would print a tight bug hole group if according to your theory we placed the target at 190 or 210 or 314m. What ever the magical distance may be. At some point those spirals converge.

How is there more then one way that we define a group? Nothing depends on it. All groups for record are measured the same way.

You still aren’t explaining a thing.

How about I explain it using your frequency theory. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel the speed starts dropping(slower frequency) It continuously drops, meaning those fancy waves you posted become longer, aka more time between points of coincident(to use your words). If it’s continuously taking longer then it would then be safe to assume that the group is opening.

The further you go, the longer the wave, the bigger group.

The bad news is that some people cant see what is in front of them. The picture and air rifle video both illustrate that it occurs, and it puzzles me that people (flat earthers) try to deny that it can and does happen.

It seems you are assuming with your 4 MOA gun example that the oscillation amplitude is 4 MOA and that is not what I'm saying.

3.5 MOA of that may be direction of the primary axis of flight and the other 1/2 MOA may be the oscillation amplitude, or some percentage that depends on barrels, bullet balance and consistency and velocity.

If my point was without foundation, it would not matter if you use crappy bullets as the imbalance would have no effect on group size. Go try CamPro bullets in your next F Class match and let us all know how you make out.

All newly revealed truth passes through three stages…
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, ridicule escalates to open opposition.
Third, it is eventually accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[keegs]

I’m argueing the fact that, you stated groups shrink....they don’t

You state they do, so please go do the shoot through test and prove Bryan Litz wrong.

Next you are completely ignoring simple facts.......but as you said some people can’t see what is right on front of them. Reread my comments on ever expanding wave lengths.

Your point has absolutely nothing to do with campro vs sierra vs Lapua, and I don’t shoot fclass. I shoot TR and ELR.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, weird fact too, I actually knew what frequency was..............it’s why I keep asking you to do Bryan Litz’s shoot through challenge. If you are correct then you would prove his challenge wrong with one of your shrinking group guns, and it would give extreme validity to everything you have said.

 

[Tokay444]

The bad news is that some people cant see what is in front of them. The picture and air rifle video both illustrate that it occurs, and it puzzles me that people (flat earthers) try to deny that it can and does happen.

It seems you are assuming with your 4 MOA gun example that the oscillation amplitude is 4 MOA and that is not what I'm saying.

3.5 MOA of that may be direction of the primary axis of flight and the other 1/2 MOA may be the oscillation amplitude, or some percentage that depends on barrels, bullet balance and consistency and velocity.

If my point was without foundation, it would not matter if you use crappy bullets as the imbalance would have no effect on group size. Go try CamPro bullets in your next F Class match and let us all know how you make out.

All newly revealed truth passes through three stages…
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, ridicule escalates to open opposition.
Third, it is eventually accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Wrong.
The bullet’s centre of mass follows the trajectory. It doesn’t orbit a damn thing except partially the earth itself until it hits something. Stable or unstable. The bullet does NOT orbit the line of trajectory. Neither the image, nor the video show that it does.

 

[Maple57]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or pity these responses.

Let's consider poor accuracy for a second.

If you take your best rifle and fire crappy bullets, will you get the same size group as good bullets?
Answer: No

Why?

The bullet was launched along the axis of bore and yet it adopted a different line by the time it hit the target.... Or did it?

How is it possible for cheap bullets to impact anywhere other than exactly where the barrel points it?

It is not that the bullet arbitrarily took off in a different direction other than the axis of bore. The bullet imbalance resulted in group distribution.

All groups on paper prove is where the bullet was when it hit that plane in space. A plane at a different distance could very well suggest the bullet is along a different vector according the the current cork screw radius.

Once you have a grasp of how bad groups can be produced from a good barrel, then you will have a perspective to understand this thread.

Bullets cannot arbitrarily select a different center line vector other than the barrel that directs it.

Stop assuming bullets fly in a straight line. (weather aside)

 

[keegs]

So a simple yes or no.

You have claimed you can prove Bryan Litz wrong. I can go quote it from your first post unless you edit it out. Will you be doing the shoot through challenge, and proving your point, and the entire point of this thread correct.

Or will you just continue to talk around subjects, telling me what you “think” I assume, and continue to rack up your post count.

 

[Maple57]

I have nothing to prove to anyone.

You claimed I'm trying to prove Litz wrong, not me.

It's up to you to understand the point that I'm actually making and not the imaginary point you think I'm making. If it is not understandable to you, that's on you.

I'm done here.

 

[keegs]

Anyone who has been on the forums for any amount of time will have come across heated arguments about groups getting better down range than at close range.

I myself have experienced groups that support such a theory (at first glance) but I don't believe it is necessarily that the bullet started flying more straight or more true.

If you look closely at this image, you can see the trace or vapor trail is spiral. I think this spiral explains much of the argument and debate.

I think the reason group sizes can miraculously reduce in size at long range is simply a condition where this spiraling effect becomes synchronized over a number of shots for some un-explained condition, or perhaps just luck.

Those would be your words, Bryan has stated that groups do not shrink hence he issued the shoot through challenge. You are very clearly stating that groups do shrink, hence my comments.

Or are you going to walk back your shrinking group comments.

I’ve asked you to do the shoot through challenge as you have made some pretty BOLD claims, and unfortunately I dont have a shrinking group gun. So as it sits, you claim all your posting about to be real, and I would be extremely interested in seeing actual data to back up those claims hence the s.t.c. Let’s be honest I think everyone here would be interested in the results.

 

[Tokay444]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or pity these responses.

Let's consider poor accuracy for a second.

If you take your best rifle and fire crappy bullets, will you get the same size group as good bullets?
Answer: No

Why?

The bullet was launched along the axis of bore and yet it adopted a different line by the time it hit the target.... Or did it?

How is it possible for cheap bullets to impact anywhere other than exactly where the barrel points it?

It is not that the bullet arbitrarily took off in a different direction other than the axis of bore. The bullet imbalance resulted in group distribution.

All groups on paper prove is where the bullet was when it hit that plane in space. A plane at a different distance could very well suggest the bullet is along a different vector according the the current cork screw radius.

Once you have a grasp of how bad groups can be produced from a good barrel, then you will have a perspective to understand this thread.

Bullets cannot arbitrarily select a different center line vector other than the barrel that directs it.

Stop assuming bullets fly in a straight line. (weather aside)

With #### bullets, your groups will be ####, and STILL be worse at distance. Not better. Bullets don’t steer around specific yard line.
A bullet never impacts where the barrel is pointing, unless your target is taped to the end of the barrel. The barrel must point above the target so the bullet can fall to the point of aim.
There is no corkscrew radius. You are literally making that up.

Where is your corkscrew?
https://youtu.be/BPwdlEgLn5Q

 

[Maple57]

With #### bullets, your groups will be ####, and STILL be worse at distance. Not better.
There is no corkscrew radius. You are literally making that up.
[/url]

Please mister wizard, I'm going to ignore the obvious inferred ignorance in most of your previous quote, but I would really like you to unpack these quotable words of wisdom for us all.

You said "With #### bullets, your groups will be ####, "

Let's ignore the expanding group part of this story for now and focus on this part... Please explain to us all how cheap bullets group badly... (I think I'm filling in the right blanks for clarity, but please correct me if I'm wrong)

How is it exactly that all the cheap bullets don't hit the same place on target?

What is it exactly about the flight characteristics of cheap bullets that make them group badly even from a good barrel?

Do they magically select a different direction and fly straight in that direction, and the next one simply decides to go some other way?

Do cheap bullets leave the barrel along a different line than the barrel itself?

How exactly to they arrive at different places on the paper?

I can't wait for you to share your personal insights.... without plagiarizing something you pulled off the internet that you don't really understand.