Why groups at long range are the same as close range.

[Potashminer]

Another thread is going on about 22 rimfire - a poster describes a testing facility - Lapua in Mesa, Arizona - indoor 100 yards (Meters?)range with electronic gizmos at 50 and 100 - does not touch the bullet in flight, but able to compare same bullets position at 50 as at 100 - Lapua concludes, from thousands of rounds, that groups at 100 are about 2.8 times the size of the groups at 50. And have had some where group at 100 was smaller, but can not be repeated, can not be reproduced on demand - so "chance" is most likely explanation, for them

 

[Tokay444]

Sounds like a thoroughly bogus test. Of course you are introducing a variable AFTER the bullet passes through the first target at 100 yards. You are going to introduce instability in the bullet that is striking the 100 yd paper at supersonic velocity which will affect precision in a negative way further down range - Talk about gaming a test.

Not exactly the scientific approach. Surprised this gets any credibility.

In order to test this properly no outside influences (which definitely eliminates the bullet striking anything between the muzzle and the final target) must happen.

Do it with electronic targets then.

 

[PSE]

Do it with electronic targets then.

YOU do it with electronic targets and incur the related costs. Also while you're at it buy a mechanical rifle rest to take the shooter out of the equation entirely since you're so sure "It's the shooter". Also make sure you try it at ranges that are meaningful. Do it many times so you have a fairly significant sample size. I'll await your results.

I'm satisfied that I've proven the concept to myself over the course of my shooting.

 

[Tokay444]

YOU do it with electronic targets and incur the related costs. Also while you're at it buy a mechanical rifle rest to take the shooter out of the equation entirely since you're so sure "It's the shooter". Also make sure you try it at ranges that are meaningful. Do it many times so you have a fairly significant sample size. I'll await your results.

I'm satisfied that I've proven the concept to myself over the course of my shooting.

People have, and it’s been debunked! You’re the one refuting it. The burden of proof is on you. My stance on the matter has already been proven. You’ll even make 25k USD!! Seems like a no brainer for if you’re so confident. It is 100% the shooter. Lapua states groups at 100 yards at 2.8 times bigger than the same shots over literally hundreds of thousands of shots, from a fixture, unimpeded, at 50 yards. Bullets don’t steer around corners.

 

[Potashminer]

Chance - I have previously posted of a friend - one of the sons - Dad had emptied 11 rounds from an iron sighted 303 British rifle at some whitetail deer - starting at 25 yards from him at first sighting of them - with 11th shot hit the buck in back of the head - sons and Dad found that deer tangled in fence line on other side of 80 acre pasture - that is 440 yards. To his grave, Dad was expounding how iron sighted 303 is all you need to hit running whitetail in the head at 400 plus yards - because he did it, and had two sons as witness. No mention of the 10 previous misses at closer ranges. Using that "example of one" as "proof" of a "fact". Just not so - is "luck", "chance", whatever word that you might chose to fit. Is not competence, not ability. Apparently never pulled of that hit before or since - did it just that once - all he needed...

 

[Tokay444]

And it was the shooter.

 

[Maple57]

Here's a question...

If a bullet impacts low and left at 100 yards, do you believe it would in all cases impact low and left at all other distances farther out as well?

If yes, then please explain how the round got low left in the first place if it was not pointed there?

Also explain why whatever force you believe directed the bullet to low left stops redirecting the bullet after the 100 yard distance?

What are the mechanical influences that cause this point of impact deviation as you understand it?

 

[Tokay444]

That same shot at any distance would be low left, if all the targets at all distances POA we inline.

The shooter broke the trigger with the barrel pointing low left.

 

[Potashminer]

Or that bullet had a slightly not square base that got pushed when it exited the muzzle, or the load was a granule or two more or less that caused the barrel vibration to be just a smidgeon different than the last one, or the primer's flame was not exactly the same, or ... Is actually a lot of reasons why all bullets do not fly through the same hole at distance - even from a bolted down rail gun - which makes those Bench Rest groups in the "teens" or better to be so amazing!

 

[northern skies]

I've seen similar vapour trails from high flying jet aircraft?

In that case it's an external factor. Wings produce a spiral flow at their tips, and sometimes you see the contrail from the engine being affected by that.

 

[keegs]

Here's a question...

If a bullet impacts low and left at 100 yards, do you believe it would in all cases impact low and left at all other distances farther out as well?

If yes, then please explain how the round got low left in the first place if it was not pointed there?

Also explain why whatever force you believe directed the bullet to low left stops redirecting the bullet after the 100 yard distance?

What are the mechanical influences that cause this point of impact deviation as you understand it?

I thought you were done here lol.

So here is a question, explain vertical stringing. I dont need speed explained to me. From your line of thinking vertical stringing from a bad es/fs spread shouldnt be vertical stringing. It should be a circular pattern.

 

[keegs]

Sounds like a thoroughly bogus test. Of course you are introducing a variable AFTER the bullet passes through the first target at 100 yards. You are going to introduce instability in the bullet that is striking the 100 yd paper at supersonic velocity which will affect precision in a negative way further down range - Talk about gaming a test.

Not exactly the scientific approach. Surprised this gets any credibility.

In order to test this properly no outside influences (which definitely eliminates the bullet striking anything between the muzzle and the final target) must happen.

You are saying Bryan Litz’s shoot through challenge isnt very scientific. Yet stating that that shooting one group at 100 m and then a different group at 400m is the voice of all reason.......no MAJOR variables introduced there eh........

The part that I’m laughing about in this thread is the 2 guys who claim groups shrink, have been asked to prove it, as everyone else isnt seeing this phenomena. Those 2 guys, you and maple are refusing.

Either one of you would earn a good chunk of change. To say you don’t want to incur the costs is a joke. If you believe what you say so truly, go take Bryan’s money.

I’d personally love to have one of these shrinking group guns. 25G would easily pay for a couple nice customs.

 

[Maple57]

I thought you were done here lol.
.

I thought so as well but it's been too entertaining to resist. I've been somewhat fascinated by the overly simplistic responses. Not that I expected anything more insightful, but at least guys are thinking about it, that's positive.

Just because people cant get their heads around it, doesn't mean it does not happen.

I'm still struggling with how time passes differently at different altitudes and how that slight time difference is what causes gravity. I don't quite understand it but every time I jump I keep falling back to the ground anyway.

I'm hoping that once guys understand the multitude of causes of group distribution that they will come to understand how this thread started.

 

[keegs]

I thought so as well but it's been too entertaining to resist. I've been somewhat fascinated by the overly simplistic responses. Not that I expected anything more insightful, but at least guys are thinking about it, that's positive.

Just because people cant get their heads around it, doesn't mean it does not happen.

I'm still struggling with how time passes differently at different altitudes and how that slight time difference is what causes gravity. I don't quite understand it but every time I jump I keep falling back to the ground anyway.

I'm hoping that once guys understand the multitude of causes of group distribution that they will come to understand how this thread started.

So in otherwords, you dont have an answer. Yet you’re still condescending towards everyone in this thread.

You do realize by continously avoiding my questions, you are literally proving my point?

Before you start talking down about anyone. Realize you didnt even know the difference between amplitude, and frequency, yet you expect everyone here to thing you are a ballistic genius.

 

[Maple57]

I'm not proving anyone's point, I'm just done defending against narrow minded misinterpretations of points I've made on the misguided assumption that people possess the intelligence to read between the lines and extract the essence of the point without weaponizing their misinterpretation in an attempt to maintain current beliefs.

 

[Tokay444]

You have made precisely zero points that are founded in truth.

 

[keegs]

I thought so as well but it's been too entertaining to resist. I've been somewhat fascinated by the overly simplistic responses. Not that I expected anything more insightful, but at least guys are thinking about it, that's positive.

Just because people cant get their heads around it, doesn't mean it does not happen.

I'm still struggling with how time passes differently at different altitudes and how that slight time difference is what causes gravity. I don't quite understand it but every time I jump I keep falling back to the ground anyway.

I'm hoping that once guys understand the multitude of causes of group distribution that they will come to understand how this thread started.

I know now why I was told to ask you if a bullet spins in the opposite direction in the southern Hemisphere.

We’ll add mass to the other basic sciences subjects you don’t have a grasp of. Or maybe that Newton guy was narrowminded too eh.....

If you really want to have fun. There is 360 degrees in your magic spiral that is as you said happening at a distance of 80 or 120 or 150 yards, change your bullet speed by 1fps and that bullet drops quicker, and also wouldnt “tight twist spiral” as fast either. Now 10fps is the next shot, and so forth. Try a hand at the math, and let me know which distance 10 bullets not travelling the same speed
Will get back to a closer point on their rotational access then at 100m or 100yds.

You stated that those bullets, come in and out of phase at different distances to make those shrinking groups, the proper term would be sync. For them to group they would need to sync up, phase would be what you change to get them to sync(group) You could also change the fps variable to a time in flight variable

You are perverting something you overheard 2 old school TR guys talk about, and trying to make it explain a phenomena which isnt real.

I will say once again, prove your shrinking groups, take Bryan’s money if you are so sure of yourself, show us simpletons how you made 25G, Or go back under the bridge and quit trolling.

 

[grauhanen]

I'm still struggling with how time passes differently at different altitudes and how that slight time difference is what causes gravity. I don't quite understand it but every time I jump I keep falling back to the ground anyway.

There's probably a reason for the ongoing struggle. Time does goes faster the further away you are from the earth's surface compared to time on the surface of the earth. It's called gravitational time dilation. It's why such very high orbiting objects such as GPS satellites must adjust their internal clocks to take into account their faster moving time so that they can give Earth-based GPS receivers accurate information. But it's not what causes gravity. Gravity is caused by objects having lots of mass.

 

[Alpheus]

Litz's book "Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting volume 2" has a whole section on this issue, what he calls convergence.
I won't go into how he explains the physics behind this impossibility, because some people simply won't listen.
I won't go into the 71 live fire trials he conducted, because some people simply won't listen.
I won't go into how no-one has accepted his challenge, which is actually to pay for the travel and lodging for someone to come to their Michigan lab and prove their groups shrink with range, because some people simply won't listen.
I will however, relate the story of how one shooter tried the paper shoot through test on their own. They claimed their rifle would shoot no better then 0.5 to 0.75 MOA at 100yds, but 0.25 to 0.5 MOA at 500 yards. They did the test, aiming at 583 yards and passing through paper at 171 yards. Well, turns out he shot 0.104 MOA at the short target and 0.225 MOA at the long target.

There's probably a reason for the ongoing struggle. Time does goes faster the further away you are from the earth's surface compared to time on the surface of the earth. It's called gravitational time dilation. It's why such very high orbiting objects such as GPS satellites must adjust their internal clocks to take into account their faster moving time so that they can give Earth-based GPS receivers accurate information. But it's not what causes gravity. Gravity is caused by objects having lots of mass.

There are actually two causes of time dilation, one is a gravitational field like you mentioned, the other is relative velocity. A moving clock is slower compared to one at rest. The atomic clocks on the GPS satellites experience both, when compared to clocks on earth.

 

[keegs]

There's a fundamental problem with Jerry logic. Ignoring any single variable and focusing on the combined effect of all variables prevents you from problem solving root cause. If you are trying to measure velocity, then measure velocity. If you are trying to measure accuracy then do it at 100 yards rather than 300 so you are not getting a weather report.

Once you have both accuracy and velocity pretty much nailed down, then go out farther. Don't start chasing your tail by developing loads at long range when you dont know how to compensate for wind and light changes. You learn that stuff after you have an accurate rifle at 100 yards with a low velocity spread. If it aint accurate at 100, it sure as hell is not accurate at 300.

Sure, once you have that, then over many many rounds at long range you may find some statistical preference, buy holy hell, its foolish advice to tell guys to start at 300.

Sorry Maple but I had to drag this little gem out of the reloading forum, and bring it to this thread. Your comments are in exact contradiction to everything you’re saying to us simpletons in this thread.

So now I will ask. Which comment of yours do you stand beside? Groups shrink, or they don’t.