Did some Nemesis videos at the range, they are on Youtube...
- Thread starter caramel
- Start date
arcstarter
CGN Regular
- Location
- Lethbridge, AB
Great shooting and awesome groups with cheap factory ammo
Caramel:
A sub 1/2 MOA rifle isn't unbelievable it's actually getting fairly common with bolt guns and target AR rifles. But your claims have been far less than that with the Nemesis. What you've shown us here isn't a .1 or .2 moa rifle as previously claimed.
Now we get to the video "evidence". Why is it in those sections? Why would you not simply set up the video, show the distance to the target then focus from behind the firearm showing you shooting down range? Walk to the target with the camera after the line is safe and show the targets? All in one unedited, continuous recording? I don't need to see you walking to the target. I just want to see your targets at 200 yards being the only ones up (ie none closer as well) and that it's at 200 yards. I have very little experience video taping but even I could figure that one out. As it stands now, you could have shot those groups at 100 yards. There is no way to tell. That being said I have shot 1/2 moa at 200 yards consistently so that part is still possible. Then again I was using 168 Federal Gold ammo at $1.80 a round not 140 MFS cheap Surplus. But again it's a far cry from the .1 or .2 claims.
Also why would you use that ammo when you have custom reloads? I don't shoot 140 grain MFS stuff out of my rifles if I have reloads that shoot the way you've stated. Sure it's nice to know that crap ammo can shoot 1/2 moa out of this rifle but what a waste of barrel life. Especially when using this as evidence against accuracy claims.
At 200 yards if everything is on the up and up then you're a good shot. But.. not as amazing as your claims.
Now we get to the part that really makes me suspect. I'll label this under the general heading Social engineering. The first part of this is people wanting to believe what they are being told. A person making less than legit claims is often able to do so because the other parties want to believe it. The second part is selective incompetence. When confronted about something that doesn't make sense a less than truthful person often claims they don't think like that or "I don't know" as their reasoning. The person has reacted normally in every other manner except this one thing which creates a credibility issue. So in that case, there's more to it than what they are telling you. They are not "naive or suddenly stupid" with only that one aspect as they hope you will believe. This is done to explain away an obvious inconsistency and goes back to the first part with people wanting to believe.
So how does this fit? Well here we have someone with a very expensive rifle, a nice scope and a decent shooter. Yet they are suddenly completely computer handicapped and that is somehow used to explain why they couldn't figure out an easy way to show that they are in fact shooting at the range they state. I'll excuse the ammo choice since maybe it was some type of prelude leading up to the match grade handloads. But let's look again at the way this was recorded. This thread would have us believe that someone capable of making meticulous choices in their equipment, including reloading which takes a lot of thought and attention to detail is somehow not going to think through how to prove their claims, because they aren't familiar with computers or electronics. Ya I don't think so. The electronics have nothing to do with thinking through how to present this. The presentation is where the inconsistency is. The unfamiliarity with electronics, computers etc is the red herring designed to draw attention away from the fact that these videos don't prove what they were supposed to.
A sub 1/2 MOA rifle isn't unbelievable it's actually getting fairly common with bolt guns and target AR rifles. But your claims have been far less than that with the Nemesis. What you've shown us here isn't a .1 or .2 moa rifle as previously claimed.
Now we get to the video "evidence". Why is it in those sections? Why would you not simply set up the video, show the distance to the target then focus from behind the firearm showing you shooting down range? Walk to the target with the camera after the line is safe and show the targets? All in one unedited, continuous recording? I don't need to see you walking to the target. I just want to see your targets at 200 yards being the only ones up (ie none closer as well) and that it's at 200 yards. I have very little experience video taping but even I could figure that one out. As it stands now, you could have shot those groups at 100 yards. There is no way to tell. That being said I have shot 1/2 moa at 200 yards consistently so that part is still possible. Then again I was using 168 Federal Gold ammo at $1.80 a round not 140 MFS cheap Surplus. But again it's a far cry from the .1 or .2 claims.
Also why would you use that ammo when you have custom reloads? I don't shoot 140 grain MFS stuff out of my rifles if I have reloads that shoot the way you've stated. Sure it's nice to know that crap ammo can shoot 1/2 moa out of this rifle but what a waste of barrel life. Especially when using this as evidence against accuracy claims.
At 200 yards if everything is on the up and up then you're a good shot. But.. not as amazing as your claims.
Now we get to the part that really makes me suspect. I'll label this under the general heading Social engineering. The first part of this is people wanting to believe what they are being told. A person making less than legit claims is often able to do so because the other parties want to believe it. The second part is selective incompetence. When confronted about something that doesn't make sense a less than truthful person often claims they don't think like that or "I don't know" as their reasoning. The person has reacted normally in every other manner except this one thing which creates a credibility issue. So in that case, there's more to it than what they are telling you. They are not "naive or suddenly stupid" with only that one aspect as they hope you will believe. This is done to explain away an obvious inconsistency and goes back to the first part with people wanting to believe.
So how does this fit? Well here we have someone with a very expensive rifle, a nice scope and a decent shooter. Yet they are suddenly completely computer handicapped and that is somehow used to explain why they couldn't figure out an easy way to show that they are in fact shooting at the range they state. I'll excuse the ammo choice since maybe it was some type of prelude leading up to the match grade handloads. But let's look again at the way this was recorded. This thread would have us believe that someone capable of making meticulous choices in their equipment, including reloading which takes a lot of thought and attention to detail is somehow not going to think through how to prove their claims, because they aren't familiar with computers or electronics. Ya I don't think so. The electronics have nothing to do with thinking through how to present this. The presentation is where the inconsistency is. The unfamiliarity with electronics, computers etc is the red herring designed to draw attention away from the fact that these videos don't prove what they were supposed to.
The "Social engineering" part of the post is a funny read, but can’t be used as a person’s reasoning is far more complicated than that. Assuming things is a sign of a very unhealthy ego 
More than a few of us have seen some very good shooters with less than perfect gear out shoot people with custom builds.
I'll take his word, after all this is the internet
More than a few of us have seen some very good shooters with less than perfect gear out shoot people with custom builds.
I'll take his word, after all this is the internet
I understand your present comment completely from a somewhat similar career from the other side of the 49th. My comment was to those they have not seen the improbable or "impossible" done. Thus my "It only really matters, when it REALLY matters" when all this first started.
Anyway I enjoy his enthusiasm and his skills and suspect we will see more "acceptable" proof, although you and I know most of the negative post aren't really about the proof.
Regards,
The "Social engineering" part of the post is a funny read, but can’t be used as a person’s reasoning is far more complicated than that. Assuming things is a sign of a very unhealthy ego
More than a few of us have seen some very good shooters with less than perfect gear out shoot people with custom builds.
I'll take his word, after all this is the internet
I'm looking at the behaviour not the reasoning. The behaviour is the key. People lie, or justify their actions. Their reasoning is of little to no importance to me. When the behaviour doesn't match what has been stated then there is an issue. People have developed certain techniques to try and gloss over this difference in what is stated versus their behaviour. Hence the Social engineering reference.
What we have here is shooting not matching what was stated. What we also have is video taping that doesn't provide evidence as was stated.
The person's reasoning or motivation is ultimately irrelevant. The behaviour doesn't match what was stated.
You can take his word all you want. The red flags I'm seeing suggest that's not a good idea. If I were planning on buying a $6000 + rifle I sure wouldn't consider the information posted as relevant at this point in that decision. That may change but not at this point.
colinmatchett
Member
- Location
- Quispamsis, NB
Is this a serious post? My God, get a life.
You're in the precision rifle forum. Every detail of a rifle and it's ammo is meticulously chosen. Reloads taking 5 times longer than commercial ammo to make for the perfect groups. If you're looking for a life then you're in the wrong forum location.
Besides if you had time to read it then maybe you should take your own advice.
I've been skeptical of the claims made and the videos have not done anything to change my view.
The Nemesis is undoubtedly a rifle of some quality and Caramel is a competent shooter - these are matters I have no issue with and will accept them as facts - but to suggest that the rifle and shooter using the methodology as claimed are capable of producing groups in the .1's and .2's is something I am not prepared to accept without evidence.
Today while doing some load development with 185 Berger Hybrid's out of a Defiance and a Coyote I switched to a known accuracy load of 175g SMK over 44g Varget and produced, out of the Defiance, a 5 shot group in the high .3's at 200m. This is out of a quality rifle that doesn't have any interchangeable barrels, shot prone off a Versapod bipod using a rear bean bag and is consistent with previous results produced by me using this rifle and ammo combo.
I'd be the first to admit, I am not a spectacular shooter but the above result (pictured below) is something around what I think a reasonably competent shooter can achieve using a good quality tactical-style bolt gun (as opposed to a BR or purpose-built F-Class rifle) with good glass and quality ammo. To make claims that a tactical type bolt gun can shoot in the .1's and .2's is misleading unless backed up by quality evidence and I question why such claims are constantly made about a rifle that has no established record of accuracy anywhere near to what Caramel is reporting to achieve.
My result ( witnessed by R700 )
The Nemesis is undoubtedly a rifle of some quality and Caramel is a competent shooter - these are matters I have no issue with and will accept them as facts - but to suggest that the rifle and shooter using the methodology as claimed are capable of producing groups in the .1's and .2's is something I am not prepared to accept without evidence.
Today while doing some load development with 185 Berger Hybrid's out of a Defiance and a Coyote I switched to a known accuracy load of 175g SMK over 44g Varget and produced, out of the Defiance, a 5 shot group in the high .3's at 200m. This is out of a quality rifle that doesn't have any interchangeable barrels, shot prone off a Versapod bipod using a rear bean bag and is consistent with previous results produced by me using this rifle and ammo combo.
I'd be the first to admit, I am not a spectacular shooter but the above result (pictured below) is something around what I think a reasonably competent shooter can achieve using a good quality tactical-style bolt gun (as opposed to a BR or purpose-built F-Class rifle) with good glass and quality ammo. To make claims that a tactical type bolt gun can shoot in the .1's and .2's is misleading unless backed up by quality evidence and I question why such claims are constantly made about a rifle that has no established record of accuracy anywhere near to what Caramel is reporting to achieve.
My result ( witnessed by R700 )
Excellent shooting and completely believable.
Personally, I believe it usually takes a bench rest gun to shoot in the 0.1s and 0.2s with carefully developed loads,little to no wind and perfect setup and shooting form. It's pretty near impossible to do that off a versa pod style bipod attached to the front of the receiver in my opinion.
Personally, I believe it usually takes a bench rest gun to shoot in the 0.1s and 0.2s with carefully developed loads,little to no wind and perfect setup and shooting form. It's pretty near impossible to do that off a versa pod style bipod attached to the front of the receiver in my opinion.
Hey Epoxy, My post was tongue in cheek. But I think you might have an ego problem.
Nah, you raised a point. I responded. I don't see that as an ego issue. If you don't like the response then so be it. Attack the post/argument not the person.
I still call BS... How about shooting in a competition like you said you would? You've claimed to shoot tight groups with every gun that you've owned and have claimed to not be impressed with the guns that you haven't posted pictures of that are known to be accurate. You're very vague with your loading technique, you're claiming consistent groups that are up to par with known competition BR shooters with a "sniper" rifle and then you post a video of you shooting cheap ammo that don't prove anything...
