Chipmunk 22 vs Marlin vs Slingshot vs Slap Shot vs RimX

Imagine a motorcycle driving at 100km/h. Then the same bike at 300km/h. Which one is easier to control?

Being gun guys we think "speed is good, but more speed is better". Up until a point more speed is great for stability, but past that it becomes unstable and erratic. So if we think of it in reverse is it possible for the bullets to stabilize at certain distances giving better accuracy? Especially when different barrel lengths and twist rates are applied?

Now I don't pretend to be intelligent in this area. It's just a layman's thought after not sleeping for a very long time. I could be completely off my rocker.
 
Standard twist would be what it is because folks back then believed it was the best twist. Much as I'd be interested to see results of testing with various twist rates, I'd be surprised if a different one was significantly better, at least for ammunition similar to what we've traditionally used. Maybe something new like solid copper might benefit from a different barrel but that's not been seen yet.
 
RabidM4U5 said:
II think, think, the premise originally put forth is that a better MOA could be observed at a further distance than the MOA on target at a nearer distance.

1 MOA at 200 yards is a greater CTC spread than it would be at 100 yards.

Theoretically, one could observe a 1.5 MOA group at 100 yards, and then a sub 1.5 MOA group at 200 yards.

I think this premise more so applies to centerfire rifles that may require some distance for the bullet to stabalize, I have only read some articles to the effect but have not tested it for myself.

I have a hard time visualizing how the same could occur with .22 LR. It could be possible, I wouldn't discount it. However, I strongly feel that ammunition quality is still a greater limiting factor that will obfuscate any meaningful observation to that effect.

Whoever develops the means to load .22 LR at home with full control over the process, including stamping out and forming the brass, will be the one to make the next major breakthrough in rimfire accuracy.
Click to expand...

This is exactly not what this thread is about.

RabidM4U5 is disputing that accuracy would progressively improve over distance and that is not what we are discussing here.

We are discussing the rate of accuracy decay. We assume the best case scenario for a 1 MOA rifle at 100 yards to be 1 MOA at 200 yards is improbable.

In all reality the groups at 200 yards will be greater than 1 MOA, but by how much?

If we were to create an algebraic formula for this we might say Accuracy at 200 yards in MOA equals accuracy at 100 yards in MOA multiplied by an accuracy degradation factor X in MOA.

If with twist rate 1:16 X equals 1.5, what is X if twist rate equals 1:12?

What twist rate would produce the lowest value for X?
 
Last edited:
Guns do not get more accurate over distance...

Shooters do not get more accurate over distance...

Aside from anecdotes we all have to the contrary... physics...
 
Daver_II said:
Guns do not get more accurate over distance...
Shooters do not get more accurate over distance...
Aside from anecdotes we all have to the contrary... physics...
Click to expand...

AGAIN...We are NOT saying guns get MORE accurate over distance.

We are discussing how much less accurate a bullet will get over distance, and what non weather related conditions (if any) would statistically affect that rate of accuracy loss.
 
I’ve got my 9t cz up and running. I’ve only shot it at 125yards. It definitely didn’t shoot supper small group but seems to favour eley force. It will shoot eley force constantly 1.5moa but all of the lapua, sk and others standard velocity eley I’ve tried is all over the place. Waiting to get to a range where I can zero it at 25 or 50 yards and shoot it out to 300 or 400 yards.
Joe
 
Back to the question at hand concerning .22LR. Is it possible a Marlin is better than a Chipmunk and a Chipmunk is better than any rimfire from made in Libya?
 
Last edited:
RabidM4U5 said:
I agree with that. I think, think, the premise originally put forth is that a better MOA could be observed at a further distance than the MOA on target at a nearer distance. 1 MOA at 200 yards is a greater CTC spread than it would be at 100 yards. Theoretically, one could observe a 1.5 MOA group at 100 yards, and then a sub 1.5 MOA group at 200 yards. I think this premise more so applies to centerfire rifles that may require some distance for the bullet to stabalize, I have only read some articles to the effect but have not tested it for myself. I have a hard time visualizing how the same could occur with .22 LR. It could be possible, I wouldn't discount it. However, I strongly feel that ammunition quality is still a greater limiting factor that will obfuscate any meaningful observation to that effect. Whoever develops the means to load .22 LR at home with full control over the process, including stamping out and forming the brass, will be the one to make the next major breakthrough in rimfire accuracy.
Click to expand...
Regardless of if it’s ultimate group size, or MOA. For it to be smaller at distance, the bullets need to change direction mid flight, after the first target paper.
 
Tokay444 said:
Regardless of if it’s ultimate group size, or MOA. For it to be smaller at distance, the bullets need to change direction mid flight, after the first target paper.
Click to expand...

No they don't.

Read up on "compensation".

A given ammo and a given rifle will shoot best at one specific distance, in terms of group height. At other distances the different velocities cause the group to be taller.

I Googled for you and found this:

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
 
Last edited:
Tokay444 said:
Regardless of if it’s ultimate group size, or MOA. For it to be smaller at distance, the bullets need to change direction mid flight, after the first target paper.
Click to expand...
Physics is on your side notwithstanding attempts to defy the reality ... that a bullet off-course at a given point in its flight, will not steer itself back on course. Well, there is the minuscule possibility that epicyclic swirl could reduce the degradation, but never enough to restore the earlier flight path by a noticeable amount.
 
Ganderite, that test doesn't prove compensation, all it actually shows is adding a 200g weight to that barrel made the 50yd groups smaller. One problem is his detector for measuring the deflection of the muzzle doesn't actually measure the deflection. Barrels do not vibrate purely in the vertical plane, which is the only thing his polarized light detector is measuring. Barrels have multiple harmonic frequencies, this site has some good animations of them (https://www.varmintal.com/amode.htm)
I also point out a quote from that page:
Note, modes 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are shown in a single plane, but can exist in other planes.
Click to expand...
There are lots of slow motion videos of barrels moving, and you can clearly see them moving in a 2 dimensional plane, with both vertical and horizontal components. It looks like the muzzle is corkscrewing. Newton's second law, when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction. The barrel is forcing the bullet to rotate, therefore the bullet is also forcing the barrel to rotate.

In other words, Mr. Kolbe is measuring the superposition of all the harmonics, not strictly the vertical deflection of the muzzle.

Another quote from that test:
(Note that this rig was not rigid. The relatively thin base plate flexed under recoil and allowed the barrel clamp to rotate backwards, resulting in an upwards vertical muzzle flip.)
Click to expand...
So he is admitting his test equipment is creating the very thing he is measuring?

Proof would be very simple. 3 targets, distances A, B and C. 10 rounds at each target, with the muzzle velocity of each round being recorded by an accurate chronograph. The velocities for each group would have to be statistically equal, i.e same average, extreme spread, std deviation etc. And the vertical dispersion for the group on paper for the "tuned" distance, lets say B, must be significantly smaller then for the closer A target and the further C target.
 
Last edited:
What I am trying to say is that it is not just a question of trajectories, assuming the bullets all leave the muzzle the same. They don't.

In the real world, if you want to shoot 100 yards, test your rifle(s) at 100.

If you want to shoot 200 yards, test your rifle(s) at 200. Would be different ammo, for sure. And maybe a different rifle if you have more than one.


I used to shoot matches where we had to shoot the ammo supplied to us. So we took a quiver of rifles and then matched the rifle to the distance. Different rifles for different distances.
 
I've read serious black powder cartridge shooters talk about it taking 200 yards for the bullet to "settle down".

It makes a kind of sense and can actually be seen with the naked eye with arrows sometimes. I've never seen any really convincing evidence though. Given how many variables there are and the preceding discussions it's tough to see how it could really be proven.

Trying your own equipment at the distances that matter to you is probably the best option.
 
grauhanen said:
It shows that the further out the target, the more .22LR accuracy sucks.
Click to expand...

We can debate CF bullet behavior till the cows come home (or the covid nightmare ends :d), but the bolded statement above remains true. I have pointed out ammo quality as being a major issue, yet even the most consistent ammo will not change the physics at play for .22 LR at extended ranges. Wind drift is exponential as distance increases, not linear, same with vertical drop. Tightening up the MV spread will likewise tighten up the vertical spread, but so long as there is anything greater than 0 fps ES, any difference in MV will result in exponentially increasing vertical spread with distance. Now add the random effects of bullet quality/consistency. Have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom