Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Then maybe try to isolate this variable with a differing make/shape of bullet?
Might as well try differing handloads at the same time?
perhaps......
Shorty M14 issue
- Thread starter Xman
- Start date
- Status
Might as well try differing handloads at the same time?
perhaps......
Possibly tipping on the FS then beginning to stabilize after 100M. Did you check to see if the bullet is hitting the FS?
Perhaps when you have properly zeroed the scope on your rifle at 100m you could post your results and this would provide a better bench mark to start from instead of telling us that the scope was not properly zeroed in the first place
Perhaps when you have properly zeroed the scope on your rifle at 100m you could post your results and this would provide a better bench mark to start from instead of telling us that the scope was not properly zeroed in the first place
Zeroing the scope would only change the point of impact, not the size of the group...The mystery is why the group opens up at 100...
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
These rifles can be very hard on scopes IMO. My Garand once had a Burris scout scope on it. Within 100 rounds it knocked the reticles loose. Off it went to the factory, when once upon a time, & not too long ago, it could be sent to Savvy Optics in Colorado for warranty repair.
Since then, I replaced it with a Leupold scout scope. Never had an issue since doing so.
Since then, I replaced it with a Leupold scout scope. Never had an issue since doing so.
The only stabilizes after 100 theory is madness. Even if it stabilized after this 8 moa 100 yard trajectory, why would it stabilize in a manner that returns it to the point of aim? It would simply start a stable trajectory from as far off point of aim as 8 moa and continue on said 8 moa off centre path.
This is just guessing but on a vertical plane, a bullet goes above and bellow the line of sight:
Could this also occur horizontally, where bullets follow a curved line, off line of sight and back on?
This is just guessing but on a vertical plane, a bullet goes above and bellow the line of sight:
Could this also occur horizontally, where bullets follow a curved line, off line of sight and back on?
NO ,
As others have said , the last magic bullets were used up on JFK .
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This may or may not help but, I've only read of one other perhaps similar report of a .308/7.62 rifle doing the 'same thing' It was in the mid to late 1980s and Jeff Cooper did an evaluation of the then much newer Austrian SSG bolt action rifle.
His grouping at 100 yards was said to be rather pedestrian in nature & mysteriously was better at 200 & 300 yards. His words not mine.
I'm just putting this out there, because of the likewise nature of this thread.......
maybe or maybe not helpful?
Edit: In grave danger of tainting myself badly, IIRC this Jeff Cooper report was for Soldier of Fortune magazine or something similar.
(oh god, I know I'm going to regret posting this!)
The bullet never actually rises after leaving the barrel. The fact that it appears to is a result of the angle between the line of the barrel and the line of aim, which is affected by your zero distance. Then of course regardless of your zero distance, the bullet will fall due to gravity.
For this to happen on the horizontal plane, you'd have to have the scope mounted on the side of the gun, and gravity would have to pull to the horizon, instead of down
For this to happen on the horizontal plane, you'd have to have the scope mounted on the side of the gun, and gravity would have to pull to the horizon, instead of down
This entire thread is utter bull####. Just saying.
Xman, you don't know what you're talking about. I can't even believe so many people have posted here in an attempt to help out. This guy is either ####ting everyone or he's totally high on drugs.
Xman, you don't know what you're talking about. I can't even believe so many people have posted here in an attempt to help out. This guy is either ####ting everyone or he's totally high on drugs.
I think people are confusing MOA with group size.
If the bullet does not have compatible spin and velocity to stabilize leaving the muzzle, the bullet could yaw inconsistently until it begins to stabilize...possibly much later in its flight thus shrinking groups at further distances and opening groups up at shorter distances.
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
absolute nonsense.
All rounds require a short distance to stabilize.This will be my last post in this ridiculous thread.
A projectile that's not put to bed early on in it's flight, (if you don't know what put to bed mean's, maybe this is one of the reasons why this thread started) is absolutely disastrous for accuracy. 8MOA at 100 yards, approximately 8" group at 100yards, will never return to 1 MOA at 300yards, approximately 3" group. The vector for the rounds have already been cast at 8MOA, if it is stable at this point it will continue on it's trajectory at 8MOA which means 24" groups at 300yds.
Anything else in regards to the laws of physics are shooter related between these three distances.
It can tighten up if you have it wire guided , similar to perhap's a Soviet Sagger antitank missile like those the Eygptian's used to great effect against Israeli armour during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Are your rounds wire guided? Otherwise forget it.
[youtube]4pF8W5liSRc&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]
A good example of how a bullet becomes stabilized later in flight, compliments of Berger Bullets, reinforcing the idea... most bullets do not usually achieve peak accuracy/consistency until later in its trajectory/flight when yaw has been minimized. This will of course vary depending on a whole host of variables ie bullet design, weight, powder, velocity, humidity, temperature etc
A good example of how a bullet becomes stabilized later in flight, compliments of Berger Bullets, reinforcing the idea... most bullets do not usually achieve peak accuracy/consistency until later in its trajectory/flight when yaw has been minimized. This will of course vary depending on a whole host of variables ie bullet design, weight, powder, velocity, humidity, temperature etc
absolute nonsense.
This will be my last post in this ridiculous thread.
Thank You
Okay, let's keep this at a happy medium. It's simply a discussion and we don't need the thread derailed by opposing "attitudes"
Smile it's just the internet
It's an interesting discussion but I would have to say I'm still baffled at the idea of a rifle that shoots 8" groups at 100 and much tighter further out.
The bullet stabilizing theory is not new but to me, I could accept the theory in this case IF, we were seeing say 4 or 5" groups at 100 and maybe just over MOA at greater distance. But 8"@100 back to 3"@300 is baffling to say the least.
Smile it's just the internet
It's an interesting discussion but I would have to say I'm still baffled at the idea of a rifle that shoots 8" groups at 100 and much tighter further out.
The bullet stabilizing theory is not new but to me, I could accept the theory in this case IF, we were seeing say 4 or 5" groups at 100 and maybe just over MOA at greater distance. But 8"@100 back to 3"@300 is baffling to say the least.
Okay, let's keep this at a happy medium. It's simply a discussion and we don't need the thread derailed by opposing "attitudes"
Smile it's just the internet
It's an interesting discussion but I would have to say I'm still baffled at the idea of a rifle that shoots 8" groups at 100 and much tighter further out.
The bullet stabilizing theory is not new but to me, I could accept the theory in this case IF, we were seeing say 4 or 5" groups at 100 and maybe just over MOA at greater distance. But 8"@100 back to 3"@300 is baffling to say the least.
If you look at the video, the bullet starts out at the muzzle grouping at 8” then shrinks down to 2” groups at 100YDS and sub MOA near the 200 YD range. Not hard for me to understand since I have similar test results as Xman with 150gn FMJ bullets (REM UMC) out of a 22” M14 bbl. Some bullet, powder and rifling combinations are simply dismal out of the M14. The trick is to match a combination of the above that produces the least amount of yaw & pitch to gain good accuracy at a wide range of distances. Also on the video note the circular pattern of the bullets POI which is consistent with Xman‘s 8” groupings.
No it is impossible once the bullet starts devation from the intial path it continues on that path and does not miracously return to the point of aim .
The reason I sugested you rezero is not to waste ammunition it is to remove all variables the reason you believe the ammunition is the issue is when we shoot at a target our eyes become fixated at the chosen point of aim and when the projectiles hit else where on the target it is easy for us to shift our point of aim and to not concentrate on intended the point of aim . Like other have said if your rifle delivers 8 " groups at a 100m it will deliver these same groups at 200m -16 " and at 300m -24" . If the bullets were unstabilized 100 m they would be key holing in the target and they would never make it to 200m let alone 300m
As far as having a bullet taking 100m to stabilize that is utter BS and anyone that says some bullets take longer to stabilize is really out to lunch. A projectile becomes stablized after exiting the barrel with in 10 m and it is at this point the bullet is in complete stabilized flight dynamics
Last edited:
Here's the thing... WWIII's video is an excellent one. He and Somme have the answer guys, read their posts....
The idea that the bullet takes some time to "settle down" is NOT an explanation for the IMPOSSIBLE scenario in which a gun shoots 8MOA at 100yards and 1MOA at 400 yards.
Think of it like this. The bullet's nose might be yawing around, like in WWIII's video, but the bullet is on ONE path. Imagine a poorly thrown football. Yeah, the ball is doing all kinds of crazy s**t, but it's on ONE PATH. A better spiral will allow the ball to stay "accurate" at longer distances, but at short ranges, the ball could be turning end over end and it would have no effect. Thus, while it's possible to have a particular rifle/projectile combo shoot 1MOA at 100 yards and 8MOA at 500 yards, it's impossible to achieve the opposite.
The idea that the bullet takes some time to "settle down" is NOT an explanation for the IMPOSSIBLE scenario in which a gun shoots 8MOA at 100yards and 1MOA at 400 yards.
Think of it like this. The bullet's nose might be yawing around, like in WWIII's video, but the bullet is on ONE path. Imagine a poorly thrown football. Yeah, the ball is doing all kinds of crazy s**t, but it's on ONE PATH. A better spiral will allow the ball to stay "accurate" at longer distances, but at short ranges, the ball could be turning end over end and it would have no effect. Thus, while it's possible to have a particular rifle/projectile combo shoot 1MOA at 100 yards and 8MOA at 500 yards, it's impossible to achieve the opposite.
absolute nonsense.
This will be my last post in this ridiculous thread.
I don't understand the anger and the accusation. Are you saying I'm making this up? Why would I make this stuff up? Do you guys think I have nothing better to do than to try to solve a non existing problem?
Why do you seem so offended?
- Status
