-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Group size goes small to large and back to small
- Thread starter MR&R
- Start date
Tim says Bryan used marginally stable bullets to disprove sleeping bullets, so I countered with that question. Fact is, people with the budget and equipment, and education to disprove the theory have done so, yet there's still people who can't let go.
OMG ,refused my offer , so what ? he won’t see it but others have . Who cares if he didn’t see it . If you actually watched the video you could do it . Troll.
Different effect from positive compensation . The thing is what was being discussed then was not that unstable bullets are coming back to stable , when a stable bullet gets released from cg offset it can and will settle down . That was the argument .
Agreed . Unfortunately the effect I speak of will will give dispersion down range and will not come back to its original trajectory. But the sooner it settles the less dispersion you will see .
Here's a 3D representation of the probability distribution of the shots from a 100-shot sample. Basically the total volume of the solid (cut in half here) is 100% of the shots, and as you slide radially you can enclose more or less of the probability a single particular shot will land within said radius/diameter (whatever reference frame you want to use, you can look at it purely radially in 2D and ignore the revolved volume).
The distribution is very similar to a normal distribution with the exception that you cannot have a negative radius for a given shot. What would be a "negative radius" shot just pops out as a positive radius on the other side of the MPOI. The mean radius isn't far enough away from the MPOI, and the bell curve tails cross over the MPOI (this is more and more true the better the dispersion is). So if you could imagine where ever the tail crosses the MPOI, the effective distribution % remaining flips back over the MPOI and skews the peak of the curve inwards towards the MPOI.
Assuming a circular group (generally true)... Functionally, your radius of any given shot is a random event and follows a (mostly) normal distribution. If you think you can define the PDF at various ranges with 3 or 4 4-shot groups, I've got bad news for you.
Almost all of the discussion regarding groups shrinking and growing and shrinking over distance are accompanied by several small DIFFERENT groups being fired at different ranges. They are not the same group. The group you shot at 100yd is not the same group you shot at 1000yd. Neither is big enough to be a predictive tool for dispersion, and both likely fall well within the bounds of the total probability density function that encompasses a larger radius than you believe your equipment is capable of.
When you fire the same group at various ranges with Shot Marker systems or paper at two distances, you see pretty much linear scaling until the point external forces (wind, MV spread, BC variation, etc.) take over. There are some variations from this that I'd like to investigate further (individual bullet dynamic behavior), but in general we've never seen any system produce 1 MOA at 100yd then 1/2 MOA at 500yd or anything like that.
ETA: Just so we're clear, myself and others not witnessing something isn't proof it doesn't exist... but collectively now we've seen quite a bit so if some such system does exist and is repeatable I think it would be safe to call it a rarity.
The distribution is very similar to a normal distribution with the exception that you cannot have a negative radius for a given shot. What would be a "negative radius" shot just pops out as a positive radius on the other side of the MPOI. The mean radius isn't far enough away from the MPOI, and the bell curve tails cross over the MPOI (this is more and more true the better the dispersion is). So if you could imagine where ever the tail crosses the MPOI, the effective distribution % remaining flips back over the MPOI and skews the peak of the curve inwards towards the MPOI.
Assuming a circular group (generally true)... Functionally, your radius of any given shot is a random event and follows a (mostly) normal distribution. If you think you can define the PDF at various ranges with 3 or 4 4-shot groups, I've got bad news for you.
Almost all of the discussion regarding groups shrinking and growing and shrinking over distance are accompanied by several small DIFFERENT groups being fired at different ranges. They are not the same group. The group you shot at 100yd is not the same group you shot at 1000yd. Neither is big enough to be a predictive tool for dispersion, and both likely fall well within the bounds of the total probability density function that encompasses a larger radius than you believe your equipment is capable of.
When you fire the same group at various ranges with Shot Marker systems or paper at two distances, you see pretty much linear scaling until the point external forces (wind, MV spread, BC variation, etc.) take over. There are some variations from this that I'd like to investigate further (individual bullet dynamic behavior), but in general we've never seen any system produce 1 MOA at 100yd then 1/2 MOA at 500yd or anything like that.
ETA: Just so we're clear, myself and others not witnessing something isn't proof it doesn't exist... but collectively now we've seen quite a bit so if some such system does exist and is repeatable I think it would be safe to call it a rarity.
Last edited:
So in short, what you are saying is, if I had shot the same bullet (theoretically) through each target, 100yrd, 400yrd, and 1000yrd, I would have had the same group size. But somehow, luck of the draw, my 400yrd shots were on the outside of the bell curve?
There are people (mysteriously) who are genius in every aspect of life ... except probability
Either you just made up that hilarious meme, or that meme was made up long ago out of necessity!
Are you thinking my loads are unstable? Sorry, so much bs I'm having a hard time following
I thought about this. I knew this isn’t how you shot the groups, because nobody shoots through targets like this, but this would certainly be a dinger of a test.
Anyway, what is being said in predominant theme is your issues at 400 which don’t align with the performance at 100 & 1000yds…the issue is between the ears.
A $10,000 test.I thought about this. I knew this isn’t how you shot the groups, because nobody shoots through targets like this, but this would certainly be a dinger of a test.
Anyway, what is being said in predominant theme is your issues at 400 which don’t align with the performance at 100 & 1000yds…the issue is between the ears.
Where do I sign up? I’ll fight even if I know I can’t win! (What is the test/challenge exactly?)
If a bullet with a stability factor of 1.4 or higher which is good , if it is destabilized from the muzzle blast ,or other causes which can cause slight wobbling right out of the muzzle and damps down as it flies then it will still disperse down range .never gets better as it travels downrange .
I really hope you stay with us. Please let go any pride/ego. Understand that you have piqued the interest of many great posters here. You have a Hornady dude addressing your post and a many knowledgeable dudes in tow. They present themselves in various manners of decorum, but if you can put aside the razzing and provide your data you will get absolutely spoon fed the knowledge & answers you seek.
And Tokay does his thing to every new guy. Tokay can fucking shoot. I’ve seen his groups, but I do believe he could use a huge dose of diplomacy in these matters.
It’s not specifically the OP. It’s just the same friggin things over, and over, and over…
Looks like I added a zero on the wrong side of the decimal, but enquire. Maybe the bounty is higher now.
What are you gonna do with my name?
Look at this post on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/T77FEjrUvwmqgZ9u/?mibextid=WC7FNe
What are you gonna do with my name?
Look at this post on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/T77FEjrUvwmqgZ9u/?mibextid=WC7FNe
Just know it might be the same thing over and over to you, but to them it’s the first time. So educate out of the gate. Rather than antagonize. You remind me of a hipster in a bar I one went in Austin TX. I asked what beers they had on draft. He replied “We don’t have any draft beer” then continued to get the orders from our table. So I got a damned water thinking place didn’t serve beer. Then I look across the restaurant and see bottled beer. Well fuck, all that waiter had to say was we have bottled beer. He knew I wanted a beer, and what he said was correct, they didn’t have draft beer, but WTF?
Last edited:
This thread is awesome guys! It explains so much.
Like when I bragged to my buddies that I could take a hair pin corner at 55mph, but then when I crashed on the same corner the police didn’t believe me when I told him I was only going 35mph and just spun around.
It’s starting to make sense, at a faster speed the car has more gyroscopic stability, right?
And as the speed increases the bumps in the road also become smoother, helping me corner faster, right?
Like when I bragged to my buddies that I could take a hair pin corner at 55mph, but then when I crashed on the same corner the police didn’t believe me when I told him I was only going 35mph and just spun around.
It’s starting to make sense, at a faster speed the car has more gyroscopic stability, right?
And as the speed increases the bumps in the road also become smoother, helping me corner faster, right?
Yeah it does when I corner at 55 or faster!!! If I go 35 I spin out!
Sorry I forgot to add that little fact
Alright. I’m certainly no fucking hipster, and fuck Austin. That was your first mistake.
I have a knack for spotting bullshit, and OP’s full of it with his 2sd ammo, and 1/4 minute/1 minute/1/2 minute gun.
I wasn't saying you were. You just reminded me of the same mentality. The city matters not.
Roger. I don't think he will be so cavalier with the data he reports to us henceforth.
He has shown exactly zero data so far.
I think it’s a fair assumption that we’ll see none moving forward.
I think it’s a fair assumption that we’ll see none moving forward.
This thread is totally bonkers. Has anyone asked if this guy shot the tiny group at close range with little to no wind, then he shot big group at medium range in a hurricane, then he came back and shot little to no wind at long range and got same group as the medium range? because wind matters? This thread was basically debunked, or whatever, years back, when some dude setup large papers at various ranges, and shot bullets through it, and guess what. The pattern as it got longer was literally exactly as you would expect.
Yea we all know bullshit when we see it too . That’s why you are too scared to state your real name , troll.Looks like I added a zero on the wrong side of the decimal, but enquire. Maybe the bounty is higher now.
What are you gonna do with my name?
