I'll wager the confidence window on this statement is very, very narrow. hehe
Chronograph data and its effects
- Thread starter Longstud
- Start date
Leuchtkafer
Member
Shorty I was just trying to wrap my head around those charts you just posted in relation to Williwaw's question, and I think there's maybe some confusion coming from the use of a ballistic calculator to try and demonstrate it. You're not showing an "untuned" reference point, only starting with a 50yd tune and moving on. It's difficult to calculate out an "untuned" example, since the calculator is changing launch angles to hit the zero point you're setting in relation to scope height, but that's not what's happening in the real world.
Best I could do was set it to an 18.3yd zero for the 1085fps round to hit zero at 50 yards, and just accept the error when plugging the 1060fps into the same formula. That gave me a 0.52" spread at 100 yards, so a 50yd tune does indeed net an improvement at this distance vs no tune, or "stopped muzzle", for that matter. In other cases, it would be better to have a "stopped muzzle" than to try and use a 200yd tune at some closer distances. So to answer Williwaw's question, yes a 50yd tune is going to carry some of it's benefit out to 100yd.
Best I could do was set it to an 18.3yd zero for the 1085fps round to hit zero at 50 yards, and just accept the error when plugging the 1060fps into the same formula. That gave me a 0.52" spread at 100 yards, so a 50yd tune does indeed net an improvement at this distance vs no tune, or "stopped muzzle", for that matter. In other cases, it would be better to have a "stopped muzzle" than to try and use a 200yd tune at some closer distances. So to answer Williwaw's question, yes a 50yd tune is going to carry some of it's benefit out to 100yd.
Unless you've tested to find out where your rifle naturally converges with a given ammo, "no tune" is simply "I don't know where it is converging." When we tune for a given distance such as 50 yards, that is what we are doing, making the rifle alter the launch angle enough for slower and faster rounds to hit the same spot. So using a ballistic calculator with a zero at a specific distance is basically the same thing as shooting a rifle tuned for that distance. With the case of my Anschutz 1712, which has no tuner, and that lot of Eley Club it looks like it is converging somewhere near the 77 m targets. But with the Eley Biathlon that distance moves closer to what appears to be the 60 m area. The only time a rifle's shots do not converge is if some or all of the shots are leaving during a downswing. The downswing amplifies the divergence. An upswing combats the divergence.
Leuchtkafer
Member
Right, it was late and I was tired, used up my brainpower allotment for the day lol. It did occur to me as I was going to sleep that there'd be some more nuance to it, as a naked barrel is going to have movement going on and thus be "in tune" for some unknown distance with a certain ammo. Or maybe not, naked barrel might be completely out of tune and launching on the downswing. Whether a 50yd tune nets an improvement at 100yd vs naked barrel is unknown and requires testing to determine. What I calculated out last night better represents "stopped muzzle" than naked barrel.
Alright, I've got a handle on it now, thanks.
Alright, I've got a handle on it now, thanks.
I have a Garmin for the sole purpose to know velocities of my cartridge. I cannot be bothered by the numbers game of SD and ES. The numbers I enjoy the most and essential to me is, the tight groups of .50" and less. Fudds ultimate number is scoring antlers and weight of meat in the freezer.
Convergence is the idea that smaller (MOA) groups are achieved at some longer distance than at a shorter one and this occurs with every rifle/ammo, with or without a tuner. In other words, with each rifle and ammo, groups will be smaller (MOA) at a certain further distance than any closer one. This flies in the face of the widely understood experience that with .22LR groups get progressively larger (MOA) with distance.
For the record, in this thread the supporters of convergence include Shorty, while Leuchtkafer (the previously banned poster RabidM4U5), and Williwaw give it their tacit approval. Of course, the fact that they agree on .22LR convergence doesn't in itself make the idea correct. Unfortunately, Shorty's claims of statistical adequacy are unsupportable and his assertions that he understands physics seem meritless.
It's worth noting that Bryan Litz says if convergence occurs it doesn't happen on purpose or predictably. He has conducted extensive testing and analyzed the results. He devotes an entire chapter to studying the idea in Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting, Volume II and concludes "The observed cases of convergence were random, and within the noise of the experimental data. No combination of rifle and bullet was found to produce repeatable convergence."
Shorty insists Litz is wrong. He says that, as with Litz's flawed .22LR tuner work, his findings on convergence remain completely mistaken. Shorty offers his own limited testing results as proof that Litzs conclusions about convergence are groundless.
Who should be believed? Bryan Litz or Shorty?
Is there any reliable published testing evidence to support the idea of convergence? Not isolated, anecdotal reports of it happening, but serious, reliable data. If anyone knows of such information, it would be most welcome if they can offer direction to it. Perhaps Leuchtkafer (Rabid) or Williwaw can offer information to support the convergence notion to which they have unwisely attached themselves. C'mon guys. Help Shorty out. Otherwise, he is on his own, like an old man shouting at clouds.
It's not productive to continue to continue the arguments over whether convergence occurs with .22LR. If other readers want to comment on whether smaller (MOA) groups are a regular thing it's best left to them.
For the record, in this thread the supporters of convergence include Shorty, while Leuchtkafer (the previously banned poster RabidM4U5), and Williwaw give it their tacit approval. Of course, the fact that they agree on .22LR convergence doesn't in itself make the idea correct. Unfortunately, Shorty's claims of statistical adequacy are unsupportable and his assertions that he understands physics seem meritless.
It's worth noting that Bryan Litz says if convergence occurs it doesn't happen on purpose or predictably. He has conducted extensive testing and analyzed the results. He devotes an entire chapter to studying the idea in Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting, Volume II and concludes "The observed cases of convergence were random, and within the noise of the experimental data. No combination of rifle and bullet was found to produce repeatable convergence."
Shorty insists Litz is wrong. He says that, as with Litz's flawed .22LR tuner work, his findings on convergence remain completely mistaken. Shorty offers his own limited testing results as proof that Litzs conclusions about convergence are groundless.
Who should be believed? Bryan Litz or Shorty?
Is there any reliable published testing evidence to support the idea of convergence? Not isolated, anecdotal reports of it happening, but serious, reliable data. If anyone knows of such information, it would be most welcome if they can offer direction to it. Perhaps Leuchtkafer (Rabid) or Williwaw can offer information to support the convergence notion to which they have unwisely attached themselves. C'mon guys. Help Shorty out. Otherwise, he is on his own, like an old man shouting at clouds.
It's not productive to continue to continue the arguments over whether convergence occurs with .22LR. If other readers want to comment on whether smaller (MOA) groups are a regular thing it's best left to them.
Last edited:
Anecdotal? I've got years worth of data, and showed you some of it right here.Convergence is the idea that smaller (MOA) groups are achieved at some longer distance than at a shorter one and this occurs with every rifle/ammo, with or without a tuner. In other words, with each rifle and ammo, groups will be smaller (MOA) at a certain further distance than any closer one. This flies in the face of the widely understood experience that with .22LR groups get progressively larger (MOA) with distance.
For the record, in this thread the supporters of convergence include Shorty, while Leuchtkafer (the previously banned poster RabidM4U5), and Williwaw give it their tacit approval. Of course, the fact that they agree on .22LR convergence doesn't in itself make the idea correct. Unfortunately, Shorty's claims of statistical adequacy are unsupportable and his assertions that he understands physics seem meritless.
It's worth noting that Bryan Litz says if convergence occurs it doesn't happen on purpose or predictably. He has conducted extensive testing and analyzed the results. He devotes an entire chapter to studying the idea in Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting, Volume II and concludes "The observed cases of convergence were random, and within the noise of the experimental data. No combination of rifle and bullet was found to produce repeatable convergence."
Shorty insists Litz is wrong. He says that, as with Litz's flawed .22LR tuner work, his findings on convergence remain completely mistaken. Shorty offers his own limited testing results as proof that Litzs conclusions about convergence are groundless.
Who should be believed? Bryan Litz or Shorty?
Is there any reliable published testing evidence to support the idea of convergence? Not isolated, anecdotal reports of it happening, but serious, reliable data. If anyone knows of such information, it would be most welcome if they can offer direction to it. Perhaps Leuchtkafer (Rabid) or Williwaw can offer information to support the convergence notion to which they have unwisely attached themselves. C'mon guys. Help Shorty out. Otherwise, he is on his own, like an old man shouting at clouds.
It's not productive to continue to continue the arguments over whether convergence occurs with .22LR. If other readers want to comment on whether smaller (MOA) groups are a regular thing it's best left to them.
Do you even know what anecdotal means? Like I said to you many, many times: Go do the test yourself. Again, which I've also said many, many times, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't merit to it. All you've done is blown hot air. I've actually shared data. Statistics is a thing for a reason. That you haven't the vaguest idea about statistics doesn't make the study of statistics invalid. You're off your rocker for thinking so. Who says to themselves "I've never studied this thing and don't know anything about it, therefore, that thing isn't a thing." It's hilarious. Instead of talking out of your behind, how about you go to the range and shoot a whole bunch of groups at multiple distances and see what happens? Go shoot at 25 yards, 50 yards, 75 yards, and 100 yards with a handful of different ammo. You'll see exactly what anyone who does the test will see. Different sized groups at different distances. And they won't all be small, bigger, bigger, biggest. It doesn't work that way. Not even if Bryan Litz says so. Just like you, he doesn't know everything, and isn't always correct. And a day at the range will show anyone how he's wrong on this one, with their own guns and ammo and eyes.
Leuchtkafer
Member
So grauhanen keeps saying "rabid rabid rabid" till he foams in the mouth, as if it means anything other than exposing himself as a delusional lunatic. "Rabid" is the first successful 1/4" club member. With a custom CZ 455. A feat that took grauhanen another two years to replicate in 4th place with the 83rd Anschutz rifle he bought. Sour grapes, much?
You mentioned me taking a break a while ago for acting like a child! Best listen to your own advice. For a new member you seem to recall an amazing amount of information! I do see a Sour Grape thing going on. Have a great weekend lads I’m going fishing and shooting.So grauhanen keeps saying "rabid rabid rabid" till he foams in the mouth, as if it means anything other than exposing himself as a delusional lunatic. "Rabid" is the first successful 1/4" club member. With a custom CZ 455. A feat that took grauhanen another two years to replicate in 4th place with the 83rd Anschutz rifle he bought. Sour grapes, much?
Rabid (or Leuchtkafer), since you insist on being pugilistic, everyone should know your 1/4" club entry had groups larger than .25" -- but that's ancient history now. With your new posting name, show everyone how it's done.
I doubt there's any reason to say anything further as everything is summed up in satire below.
I doubt there's any reason to say anything further as everything is summed up in satire below.
Leuchtkafer
Member
grauhanen has engaged in an unwarranted and unprovoked campaign of harassment and abuse directed at me ever since I joined. He never changes. He is incapable of conducting himself like a mature, rational *sane* adult. He didn't just let his mask slip, he ripped it off in a full on narcissistic meltdown for all to see. Though he tries to gaslight, as if he thinks everyone is stupid, he only continues to bury his trashed reputation and flush it further down the drain. If he possessed a modicum of self awareness, he would be so ashamed of his behaviour that he wouldn't bear to show his face around here anymore, yet he continues incessantly to be a wailing toddler. It would be laughable, were it not so utterly sad.
Readers will now observe the typical narcissistic response from grauhanen of deflection, blame shifting, gaslighting, denial, and projection to avoid accountability for his behaviour. Hell will freeze over before he ever looks inward.
Readers will now observe the typical narcissistic response from grauhanen of deflection, blame shifting, gaslighting, denial, and projection to avoid accountability for his behaviour. Hell will freeze over before he ever looks inward.
1/4" groups. This target is a copy of a BR 50 target shrunk down to fit a 8 1/2" X 11" piece of card stock. Only target #15 was over 1/4" but this wasn't accepted for an entry here because there were more than 5 groups on the target.
Last edited:
Science is science even when you don't get it. And there seem to be a lot of things you don't get. Physics > GlennRabid (or Leuchtkafer), since you insist on being pugilistic, everyone should know your 1/4" club entry had groups larger than .25" -- but that's ancient history now. With your new posting name, show everyone how it's done.
I doubt there's any reason to say anything further as everything is summed up in satire below.
