Sorry buddy, but I will die on this hill. I so disagree with you on this and find your condescending confidence on the point disgraceful.
I appreciate your thoughts as I do not believe you to be an unintelligent person, but to suggest that I lack experience and knowledge is clear evidence to the contrary.
You clearly suffer from cognitive bias. You just want to be right and you state claims made by others as though for some reason whoever they are represent some higher authority. The world is full of truly moronic people who make absurd conclusions without the realization that some other factor is the real reason for the result. These things propagate as the parrots of the world who don't have the ability to see the logical defects repeat the stories to others who don't know enough to call the parrot a parrot. These parrots keep repeating the sounds they like with no insightful understanding of the meaning or the moronic thinking behind the statement. I could literally write a book on this as it applies to the shooting community.
But yes, some of your points are valid, (nothing new to me mind you) but we depart on this arbitrary 2.8 factor thing and ignoring the effect of transonic induced variation. Here I draw a hard line and its probably best to agree to disagree.
Each of your successive posts is like watching a terrible car accident unfolding. There's a strong desire to look away, but it's impossible.
Reason doesn't seem to persuade you. Nevertheless, a brief recap may help, even though it appears you haven't read much of anything on this thread regarding the question.
Rabid's post #80 put the question into the basics very well. He succinctly and ably explains the cause of non-linear .22LR performance.
Performance is not linear. and cannot be. This is not difficult to understand for anyone, except you, it seems. Velocity variation shot-to-shot produces exponentially greater vertical dispersion with distance, not linear. Wind produces exponentially greater drift with distance, not linear. Flaws in the bullets fly off-track exponentially more with distance, not linear.
If you post again regarding the question about the non-linear nature of .22LR performance, please acknowledge you've read what Rabid has correctly noted. If you can do that but continue to deny the non-linear nature of .22LR behaviour, then perhaps you're beyond redemption. I hope not.
Rabid's explanation leads to the figure of 2.8 with which you seem unable to deal.
Please note and understand that the figure of 2.8 as the multiplier factor for ten-shot group increase,
on average from 50 to 100 meters is not arbitrary. As noted above there is reason behind it. If you don't read posts you'll remain ignorant of it's basis in fact.
Nevertheless, here's what was said about that in an earlier post (#67) on this thread.
It's not my personal claim that .22LR accuracy is not linear. It's a well-established fact that .22LR performance gets worse as distance increases and that's not a secret. If you're unaware of that aspect of .22LR performance, it may be due to inexperience, a lack of understanding, or indifference -- or perhaps something else.
For a brief elaboration, when ammo performance at 50 and 100 meters at Lapua testing facilities is compared, the ten shot groups at 100 are on average 2.8 times the size of the exact same ammo performance at 50 meters. The figure of 2.8 the product of a comparison of results in Lapua testing facilities where results for the same ten shots are recorded electronically at both distances. The comparison is of apples to apples because it looks at performance for the exact same rounds of ammo at 50 and 100 meters in windless test tunnels with rifles shot from a fixture or vise.
If it helps, here's further elaboration. A study was done looking at Lapua testing facility data comparing results at 50 and 100 meters, where electronic targets record data with the same ammo at both 50 and 100. The study compared results of many sets of 50 and 100 meter data. It found that
on average groups at 100 meters were 2.8 times larger than those at half the distance. The words "on average" are emphasized because it's an average; some results were better and some were worse.
The information here has been previously set out. You choose to ignore or misunderstand or deny it. If you see condescension on my part, imagine the frustration that results from your refusal to read what's already posted.
Rather than offering any evidence whatsoever to support your view that .22LR accuracy is linear, you choose to label those who disagree with your position as moronic and as parrots. You've preferred to steadfastly cling to a ship that you believe is still afloat, but fail to understand is already sunk.
When you don't understand, ask questions. When you disagree, offer reasoned and reliable information. Unfortunately, your posts have done neither.
Edit to add at 5:21 PM Dec. 27: I think this debate is now over.
