-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Range Report How can a rifle shoot poorly at 100 but well at 1000?
- Thread starter jaybic
- Start date
A group will always linearly open up at distance but at the same time, under some odd circumstances have a smaller angular measurement though
the ladders that are seen above (upper right) at .75 moa for 15 shots over almost 3 grains of powder and then again with the same charges and a 75 ELDM on the orange dot(POA is the top little orange dot) are 15 shots also. And you can literally count 15 separate bullet holes with Hornadys but the Bergers shoot that well so I try the middle of the top node and the actual "node" load wont shoot as well as the entire 15 shot ladder test....hell, i dont know....maybe it is me but my other rifles dont seem to have this issue. Scope shoots fine on my PRS 6x47s. I am gonna pull it out of the Manners and put it in a MPA and see if the stock makes a differnce I guess....thanks again folks.
I’ve loaded ammo that shot .5-.6 moa at 100 that also shot relatively the same at 1000 because it had a super tight ES, and ammo that shoots .2s at 100 that opens up to the same .5-.6 moa at 1000 because of a higher ES. Neither has any real advantage in a match. I’ve taken trophies with an ES of 30, but it grouped 6” at 1k.
To take it one step further, I no longer even look at groups at 100 except to zero the rifle, and don’t even care about ES/SD. I go straight to 1000 on a calm day and as long as it groups consistently with tight vertical I’m done. Chasing numbers on a screen is only valid when those numbers coincide with good groups at distance. Good groups at distance need no other data for validation.
To take it one step further, I no longer even look at groups at 100 except to zero the rifle, and don’t even care about ES/SD. I go straight to 1000 on a calm day and as long as it groups consistently with tight vertical I’m done. Chasing numbers on a screen is only valid when those numbers coincide with good groups at distance. Good groups at distance need no other data for validation.
I’m going to slide out on the limb and say this target reinforces what I said before. Short of copper fouling or something like that this target screams shooter error to me.
The 3/4 moa ladder test is the tell. How is the 15 shot ladder test the same or smaller than most of the groups? When people get “shoot a group” in their head it can screw with them. On the ladder test your mindset was different. You aren’t trying to shoot a group. You are shooting and allowing the bullets to fall where they fall. Mindset is a huge factor in shooting .3-.5 moa vs 1-1.2 moa. When you are expecting and trying to shoot a tiny group it can make you subconsciously do all kinds of weird things that will screw it up. Ask me how I know. The tiny aiming points will make all of this much worse.
Clean the rifle of all copper. Load up the most promising nodes and go back with larger aiming points and no expectations or care as to how the rifle will shoot. Just let the bullets fall where they fall. *Dryfire 10 times before each group* Don’t skimp on this, do it every time. Shoot a little faster without trying to hold everything so perfect.
Last edited:
I first tried PPU when I bought the Stag Super Varminter, and the LGS owner showed me his 100yd groups with his Stag 6 and PPU 69gr Match. I also tried the 75gr Match, and it was at least as good.
I then moved on to more serious handloading, still noting that the PPU brass was actually quite good for handloading, too.
For now, I'm getting into finding how well Starline and Speer Gold Dot work together for .308, .223, and 6.5Grendel.I sure wish Starline sold 30-06, too. Oops, just saw they do, now.
That's a shift from Hornady Brass and ELD's. I had been trying for loads that perform well at both accuracy and expansion, but I had pressure issues, and I switched to the Gold Dots, which gave me both, worked well as substitutes with working SMK and A-Max loads and show much milder pressure indicators, enough so as to suggest (carefully) looking for higher nodes.
IMHO, my choices right now are being driven at least as much by cost as they are by logic. As long as it works...
Greg
I then moved on to more serious handloading, still noting that the PPU brass was actually quite good for handloading, too.
For now, I'm getting into finding how well Starline and Speer Gold Dot work together for .308, .223, and 6.5Grendel.
That's a shift from Hornady Brass and ELD's. I had been trying for loads that perform well at both accuracy and expansion, but I had pressure issues, and I switched to the Gold Dots, which gave me both, worked well as substitutes with working SMK and A-Max loads and show much milder pressure indicators, enough so as to suggest (carefully) looking for higher nodes.
IMHO, my choices right now are being driven at least as much by cost as they are by logic. As long as it works...
Greg
I have one rifle that the perfect middle of the node for sd's also happens to be a "scatter node". Damn thing goes to 2moa, yet I bump up or down 50fps, my sd's double and it goes back to .5 moa.
I've heard claims from benchrest guys that barrel whip and timing is important, and the scatter effect is from the bullet leaving when the barrel tip is in the middle of an oscillation. The speed up/down will usually result in the bullet leaving at the top or bottom of a cycle where there is dwell time.
I had another rifle that would kick 115grn bullets 18" high left from 100's at 200 yards, but it shot .75 moa with either load, so I just stuck with 115's for everything at that point.
My advise would be to pick one load, shoot one target, repeat. You'll only confuse the variables stacking them.
I understand you want a ladder, but taking a step back will help sort through the anomalies.
I was able to get tighter es and sd by switching to Norma brass (started with Hornady), running an inside neck mandrel for .002 neck tension, and annealing on a regular basis. Fx120 scale helped also.
The flat spots in the "Powder Charge vs. Muzzle Velocity" graph are the only thing that fairly accurately correlates to reality in sample sizes under 20-25. i.e. The chart at the end of Page 1 of this thread will usually look very similar whether you use sample sizes of 5-10 shots, or 20-50 shots.
ES, SD, Accuracy, even for 10-15 rounds don't tell you the whole picture. As you shoot a 50-shot sample, the SD will bounce around all over the place and levels out around 20-25 samples most of the time. Sometimes they start great and get worse, sometimes they start bad and get better... For a given bullet/powder/case/primer combo where you vary charge weight and/or seating depth, IME the SD does not vary more than about 3 fps... and it's about 2-3x of what most of the posted Magnetospeed pictures are on this site once you get a sample size large enough to resemble a Normal or T distribution... which is like, uh... when a standard deviation is actually a useful number for analysis. What I've seen shows reality to be SD's in the 12-20fps range.
ES, SD, Accuracy, even for 10-15 rounds don't tell you the whole picture. As you shoot a 50-shot sample, the SD will bounce around all over the place and levels out around 20-25 samples most of the time. Sometimes they start great and get worse, sometimes they start bad and get better... For a given bullet/powder/case/primer combo where you vary charge weight and/or seating depth, IME the SD does not vary more than about 3 fps... and it's about 2-3x of what most of the posted Magnetospeed pictures are on this site once you get a sample size large enough to resemble a Normal or T distribution... which is like, uh... when a standard deviation is actually a useful number for analysis. What I've seen shows reality to be SD's in the 12-20fps range.
Good post sir.
Agree that finding the flat spots (where speed does not change much as powder charge goes up) is possible via 5 shot groups. The wider of these flat spots have the potential to provide good insurance against powder charge errors as well as speed changes caused by powder (temperature) stability issues, so worth exploring. But it you are a little unlucky the flat spot just below the pressure max might be a “scatter node” with group > 1 MOA, and then you might have to give up 50-150 fps in speed.
Why short range group size vary so much: The prevailing theory (proposed by Chris Long) appears to be that the pressure caused by the expanding gasses just ahead of the chamber creates a pulse moving from chamber to crown at the speed of sound (in steel) that inflates the diameter of the barrel and disturbs the shape of the crown allowing random gas blow-by, equivalent to a damaged crown that looks different every time a bullet exists. The pulse then reflects back and races back to the chamber side of the barrel, and pulse reflecting process continues. Ensuring that the bullet leaves the barrel between these periods of gas blow-by helps with accuracy.
The missing piece that has to be added to this theory is that Positive Compensation is possible and is driven by barrel whip and bullet exit timing (barrel dwell time) and PC can help to reduce vertical dispersion significantly at specific distances. [Curious what your experience is: How narrow is the distance range where PC works adequately?]
You are correct that not all of the flat spots will yield small groups at 100, or small SD. Investigating these potential flat spots to see which one will also yield a small SD AND a small group size (at the desired distance) takes a lot of load development (and barrel life), and can be tricky. I have one rifle where this worked out, and under wind still conditions i have seen multiple 1.5” groups at 600 yards, with vertical dispersion under 2” almost all of the time, and 0.25” groups at 100, with SD around 8 fps.
But with my 30” replacement Shilen Match Select barrel i could not get all three (flat spot, low SD and Positive Compensation) to line up, so you end up with a compromise (0.6” groups at 100, around 9 fps SD for a 35 plus sample size, and pretty good PC).
Maybe i should cut the barrel back 2” at a time and try again, or add a barrel tuner? Or both. Maybe i need one more knob to turn....
I also think too many folks report their best 5 shot SD and ES, and the large sample statistic is often 3-4x higher. An ES below 10 is not something you will achieve for a box of 50 or 100 rounds in a tactical or hunting rifle. Even for a championship winning BR rig with a tight chamber and meticulously “tuned” brass it will be very challenging.
Last edited:
For your pondering, here's the SD vs. shot count on some 30-35 shot samples with a factory .223 barrel. The 5 different lines are 23.5, 23.7, 23.9, 24.1, and 24.3gr of Varget with a 75gr BTHP. I'm still fairly early into this testing and haven't really got a handle on what the knobs are. I have a few more rifles/barrels lined up to do similar testing with to try to see what matters and what doesn't. I'm isolating MV ES/SD first, then will mess with accuracy afterwards, though I am taking note of what is happening for accuracy.
One thing you can clearly see is that anything under 20 sample size is very liable to be a blatant lie. Very noisy.
ETA: SD in fps on the left, # of shots on the bottom
One thing you can clearly see is that anything under 20 sample size is very liable to be a blatant lie. Very noisy.
ETA: SD in fps on the left, # of shots on the bottom
This is certainly interesting, for sure. So if I am understanding correctly, going out and shooting 5 rounds and getting an SD of say...5fps...is fantastic but also quite probably irrelevant in that it is not a big enough sample to give an accurate picture of reality. The answer is shooting 30-35 shots( a 7x larger data sample) and going with that number in the process of deciding if a load is reliable....am I understanding this correctly? It seems quite sensible honestly. The bigger the data sample, the more accurate the results are likely to be yes?
Correct. I have once seen my first five shot group of the day produce an SD of 3, post fouling shots (not recorded), but 45 rounds later SD ended up at 9 fps. In that particular case SD took about 25 rounds to mostly stabilize.... it usually takes 20-25 rounds for me. I think LedZep’s graph is pretty representative. Of course ES keeps growing (a little) even after 100 rounds. Very unreliable statistic and not to be taken to the bank....
So yeah 5 shot stats are meaningless....
I skimmed through the thread and didn't see anyone suggest to you to have someone else run your gun. Find a buddy and have him/her print a few groups just to rule it out.
I've had friends do this in the past with me, it's surprising.
How many rounds do you have down the barrel?
Another simple thing you can do is tear down the rifle and build it back up, blue locktite as you go. Some times all it takes is a screw to throw a wrench in things.
Have you taken it out to 4-500yds just to see what it'll do? This leads me to another question, that 15 shot ladder, I'm guessing it was shot at 100yds. You need to do ladder testing at distance to even see anything. 300 yds min. I typically do ladders at 500yds.
Hope this helps.
Xdeano
I've had friends do this in the past with me, it's surprising.
How many rounds do you have down the barrel?
Another simple thing you can do is tear down the rifle and build it back up, blue locktite as you go. Some times all it takes is a screw to throw a wrench in things.
Have you taken it out to 4-500yds just to see what it'll do? This leads me to another question, that 15 shot ladder, I'm guessing it was shot at 100yds. You need to do ladder testing at distance to even see anything. 300 yds min. I typically do ladders at 500yds.
Hope this helps.
Xdeano
Last edited:
This has been a great read for me. Although 5 shot sd's and es's are nothing to hang your hat on they are a good place to start to narrow down your choices of loadings. Then finalize with an appropriate sample size at distance. At least that's my thinking when working up loads.
You can also just close your eyes and randomly pick between loadings to narrow them down. It’s equally useful as a 5 shot SD, but more convenient because you don’t even have to go to the range!
William C. Davis has reported on tests conducted at Frankford Arsenal on this subject matter. Using machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test-barrels, one such test that was conducted on an indoor-range involved firing eighteen 10-shot groups on targets at 100 yards and 300 yards. The average extreme spread for the groups at 300 yards was 3 times as large as the average extreme spread of the groups at 100 yards.
In another test that was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground using .30 caliber match-grade ammunition, thirteen 10-shot groups were fired simultaneously through paper screens at different distances. The mean radius for the groups at 300 yards was 1.0”. The mean radius at 600 yards was 2.1”
Heavy/long for caliber bullets can shoot superbly at 100 yards. The 10-shot group pictured below was fired from one of my Krieger barreled AR-15s at a distance of 100 yards using a hand-load topped with the 85 grain Barnes Match Burner. The group has an extreme spread of 0.428".
....
William C. Davis has reported on tests conducted at Frankford Arsenal on this subject matter. Using machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test-barrels, one such test that was conducted on an indoor-range involved firing eighteen 10-shot groups on targets at 100 yards and 300 yards. The average extreme spread for the groups at 300 yards was 3 times as large as the average extreme spread of the groups at 100 yards.
In another test that was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground using .30 caliber match-grade ammunition, thirteen 10-shot groups were fired simultaneously through paper screens at different distances. The mean radius for the groups at 300 yards was 1.0”. The mean radius at 600 yards was 2.1”
Heavy/long for caliber bullets can shoot superbly at 100 yards. The 10-shot group pictured below was fired from one of my Krieger barreled AR-15s at a distance of 100 yards using a hand-load topped with the 85 grain Barnes Match Burner. The group has an extreme spread of 0.428".
....
Good set of data points, thanks for posting.
That is one neat 10 shot group for a gas gun, very well done! What components did you use to build such an accurate AR-15?
Well, after a little more experimentation using a custom load development pack AND my own handloads, perhaps this pic will bring something to light
Top row: 22 CM lightest charge to heaviest L to R. All 5 round groups. Never breaking cheek weld. Middle row center target is my new 6bra...5 shots. Middle row far right is my new 6.5x47....5 shots. Bottom right is my 6bra...off a rooftop(Correction...55 gallon plastic barrel) and a gamechanger bag only...5 shots.
The BRA is a 105 hybrid/h4895 fireforming load i just threw together as is the 6.5x47 load(rounds 29-34 on a brand new build(130 ELDM and Varget). Neither of these loads have been tuned it anyway, shape or form....just load and shoot to get rounds on the tubes prior to beginning actual load development. Some of the other groups are me trying a my handloads(very poor) and even trying a different MPA chassis rather than the Manners(did not help).
I only post to give testimony that, yes it may well be me, but I do have evidence that on that same day, same conditions, and same target, I had no trouble shooting under .5 with other rifles that had no where near the time and effort put in to them. And once again, I do sincerely appreciate the advice and insight in helping me get to the bottom of this rifle issue. Thanks to all...
Top row: 22 CM lightest charge to heaviest L to R. All 5 round groups. Never breaking cheek weld. Middle row center target is my new 6bra...5 shots. Middle row far right is my new 6.5x47....5 shots. Bottom right is my 6bra...off a rooftop(Correction...55 gallon plastic barrel) and a gamechanger bag only...5 shots.
The BRA is a 105 hybrid/h4895 fireforming load i just threw together as is the 6.5x47 load(rounds 29-34 on a brand new build(130 ELDM and Varget). Neither of these loads have been tuned it anyway, shape or form....just load and shoot to get rounds on the tubes prior to beginning actual load development. Some of the other groups are me trying a my handloads(very poor) and even trying a different MPA chassis rather than the Manners(did not help).
I only post to give testimony that, yes it may well be me, but I do have evidence that on that same day, same conditions, and same target, I had no trouble shooting under .5 with other rifles that had no where near the time and effort put in to them. And once again, I do sincerely appreciate the advice and insight in helping me get to the bottom of this rifle issue. Thanks to all...
Attachments
Last edited:
Hello,
I recognize you from the Nodak outdoors page and Coyotehunter.net btw....lol...nice to see you are here also. As for your questions. It has 500 plus rounds on it now and has been checked, checked and rechecked a number of times. different scopes and stocks both. I have shot it to 600 and it gave one group at 2.5 moa and never came close again. The ladder was shot at 100 with a magnetospeed on it to use it to find a node(the wide node shown in a previous post). I normally shoot ladders at my buddies house at 600 and we do have access to 1200 yards(too many variables at that distance IMO) so yes, I do try to stretch it out but deep snow only lets me get to 100 for paper work.(the steel is still out there but pretty banged up to do precision work). Anyway, thanks for the ideas and take care,
Jaybic
Hey Jaybic,
Good to see youre still alive. I havent been on nodak in years and coyotehunter got shut down for the most part. Ive been on here since about 2000-2001 or so, through all the site changes. Not as many people back than.
I love my magnetospeed but it really messes with my poa/poi. I need to put it on a pipe, like all the cool kids.
Only advice i have for you is maybe stick a horoscope down the pipe and see what it looks like. You may have some issues there. Try a different load all together.
Id talk to your Smith about the issue too. They may have some insight we're missing.
Xdeano
I have tried 75 ELDMs, 88 ELDMs and 80 gr berger VLDs with H4350 and H4831 so far....with minimal positive results. I did just get 4 lbs of RL 26 and some 80.5 gr fullbores as well as some 77 TMKs. I have been in touch with the smith and it was he who advised me to try the load development packs manufactured by a customer reloading service(as close as it gets to a "factory ammo" benchmark). They have been quite willing to help with some home remedies so far and advised that if it does not come around, that I can send it back and they will look at it as well so zero complaints there.
I would rather not have to send it back but being a 22 Creed with 500 plus rounds on it that wont shoot, it is already half way thru the barrel. Whats a guy to do? Its a lot of money to lay out for a 1.25 moa gun so I have to believe they will take care of me assuming that it is not me that is the issue but rather the rifle. I would like to believe that the target I posted using a custom loading service will acquit me and my shooting ability...I hope....anyway, take care and peace!
I would rather not have to send it back but being a 22 Creed with 500 plus rounds on it that wont shoot, it is already half way thru the barrel. Whats a guy to do? Its a lot of money to lay out for a 1.25 moa gun so I have to believe they will take care of me assuming that it is not me that is the issue but rather the rifle. I would like to believe that the target I posted using a custom loading service will acquit me and my shooting ability...I hope....anyway, take care and peace!
Clearly you can shoot sub 0.5 MOA groups with a different rifle. So it is not the pilot / trigger puller. And the custom load pack did not help either, so it is not poor reloading practices on your part.
I would send it back. Something is wrong with the gun.
BTW: A chamber that was not cut concentric to the rifle bore will do that, or a bad barrel, or bolt lugs that don’t make equal contact, or a bad recoil lug, or one of a dozen other things.
I would send it back. Something is wrong with the gun.
BTW: A chamber that was not cut concentric to the rifle bore will do that, or a bad barrel, or bolt lugs that don’t make equal contact, or a bad recoil lug, or one of a dozen other things.
Last edited:
Rifle was trued up by the smith and I paid for a custom PT and G bolt to be installed so either way. Tube is a cut rifle tube from a Wisconsin manufacturer considered one of the best in PRS circles.....but hell, anyone can end up having a marginal one get by....hell, who knows. I am just putting my faith in the builders that they will get me fixed up somehow....thanks again...
You spend good money on a top spec race gun, and it deserves to shoot 0.35” groups or better.
Given what went into the rifle, that leaves the barrel or the chambering job as the most likely causes...
Sorry to hear about your troubles, must be very disappointing to be in that situation. At least the gun maker is willing to work with you to get it fixed, so i would say make full use of that. Not all gunsmiths are like that!
Last edited:
If you’re shooting good groups at 100yd without any sign of instability, (and things like having a clean enough barrel and the normal culprits are eliminated), there’s only a couple things that will affect you negatively at distance (besides environmentals):
ES
BC variance from bullet to bullet.
If you get your loading technique dialed in and have a consistently low ES, then it’s going to b the BC that gets you.
So, ti perfect that, you’ll need to move into sorting/trimming/tipping, etc. Most of us shooting PRS won’t benefit all that much from this, so most stop when they have a low ES.
Anything else is dogmatic shit that keeps getting passed down. A bullet isn’t going to be unstable enough for us to notice at 100 and then all of a sudden stabalize at distance.
ES
BC variance from bullet to bullet.
If you get your loading technique dialed in and have a consistently low ES, then it’s going to b the BC that gets you.
So, ti perfect that, you’ll need to move into sorting/trimming/tipping, etc. Most of us shooting PRS won’t benefit all that much from this, so most stop when they have a low ES.
Anything else is dogmatic shit that keeps getting passed down. A bullet isn’t going to be unstable enough for us to notice at 100 and then all of a sudden stabalize at distance.
Man I had one hell of a time with load development with my 7 rem mag. I went through multiple brass brands, headspace, powders and seating depth. I would really just play with your case headspace and bullet seat depth.
But man it don't have to shoot a dime at 100. If you're getting anything sub moa and your SD/ES is low, it'll shoot good at distance.
OP is getting five shot groups between 0.95 and 1.75 MOA at 100. That is very poor based on my experience. Most $450 stock Savage or Ruger rifles will do better than that. A blueprinted Rem700 with a Bartlein custom barrel and a trued bolt and recoil lug should be well below 0.7 MOA. More like 0.35 to 0.5 MOA.
With a different rifle, he is getting multiple 0.3 MOA groups with four or five holes touching. He showed photo evidence of that. So the man can shoot.
Copper Creek does a good job on their load development packs, but that did not work either. Handloads are also not working well.
Chassis swap did not help either.
His five shot groups with the non-performing 6 Creedmoor rifle:
I would send the rifle back to the smith.
Last edited:
I scrolled through the posts. One thing I disnt see ansked or answered is.
Are you running a brake or a suppresor?
If so do you remove it between sessions?
Have you shot the rifle without it on?
Another question.
If you chamber a round normally from the magazine have you ejected the rounds to inspect for markings( may have to run a magazine full through to test)
Are you running a brake or a suppresor?
If so do you remove it between sessions?
Have you shot the rifle without it on?
Another question.
If you chamber a round normally from the magazine have you ejected the rounds to inspect for markings( may have to run a magazine full through to test)
neither.....no muzzle device at all. I will have a can on it when the atf bullshit is done but nothing now.....and I have looked at the brass and dont see anything but I could easily have missed something. good ideas tho and thanks for the insight!
Jamie
Jamie
I agree with the Op that often times my rifle will shoot better at longer range (usually around 300 to 600 yards) than it does up close, and while it may defy rational thought, it still seems to occur just the same. Not always mind you, but often enough to think there is something more going on.
I have two possible theories on the point...
1) Light refraction and mirage makes it hard to shoot tight groups at close range, (because of target displacement caused by light refraction humidity and heat) but at longer ranges, under the right conditions, perhaps the target displacement averages out.
2) The second possible explanation is that the bullet begins life with a certain imbalance that causes it to travel in an orbit about the directional axis. At close range, this orbiting has not settled out yet, or perhaps never does.
Here's an interesting video on YouTube showing an over powered pellet in flight. It travels in a circular spiral pattern that appears larger than the group he produces. If the target was moved a foot or two closer, the group would shift POI to somewhere else along the spiral path.
I have two possible theories on the point...
1) Light refraction and mirage makes it hard to shoot tight groups at close range, (because of target displacement caused by light refraction humidity and heat) but at longer ranges, under the right conditions, perhaps the target displacement averages out.
2) The second possible explanation is that the bullet begins life with a certain imbalance that causes it to travel in an orbit about the directional axis. At close range, this orbiting has not settled out yet, or perhaps never does.
Here's an interesting video on YouTube showing an over powered pellet in flight. It travels in a circular spiral pattern that appears larger than the group he produces. If the target was moved a foot or two closer, the group would shift POI to somewhere else along the spiral path.
Last edited:
(I know I'm wasting my effort, but whatever.)
It is impossible for an unguided projectile to "orbit" the axis of travel. You can only orbit around something if there is a force being externally imposed to cause this rotational acceleration. In the case of actual orbits, that is gravity. There is no such force here.
The spiral you see in the video is not the path of the projectile. It is distortion in the air, just like the way mirage makes targets look like they are moving even though they are not.
It's the Human Factor as it's exposed to Recoil
If you look at Recoil through the Scope, the Targets are very pronounced up close and the recoil appears much more violent than it really is. So our brain reacts to this recoil via the sight picture trying to defend the body against the violence.
So when you shoot farther away the sight picture opens up and movement is less pronounced to the brain so it relaxes a bit more.
It's a mental perception thing, and why this cannot be reproduced sans a shooter. At distance, we also steer the rifle more because of wind so there is a windage factor in guiding the bullet closer to center. You have to have an external factor, for most new shooters it is a bad wind call that gets lucky.
The only test and one that will show this is using more than one target and putting a rice paper target at 100, shoot through it to a target at 1000 and see what it looks like.
Bullets are not out of balance, going to sleep, they are stable or not within inches of the muzzle, not downrange.
The elliptical swirl people like to use to demonstrate the rotate of a bullet is microscopic and the swirl demonstrates are nothing more than exaggerations of the truth in order to see it.
Your gun is a dumb machine shooting a dumb bullet, there is no pilot and needs outside influence to change things. That influence is usually the shooter. Hence the Human Factor which no book talks about, they propose these drifts and things in a vacuum. Remember when they model stuff on a computer using Point Mass there is no bullet.
If you look at Recoil through the Scope, the Targets are very pronounced up close and the recoil appears much more violent than it really is. So our brain reacts to this recoil via the sight picture trying to defend the body against the violence.
So when you shoot farther away the sight picture opens up and movement is less pronounced to the brain so it relaxes a bit more.
It's a mental perception thing, and why this cannot be reproduced sans a shooter. At distance, we also steer the rifle more because of wind so there is a windage factor in guiding the bullet closer to center. You have to have an external factor, for most new shooters it is a bad wind call that gets lucky.
The only test and one that will show this is using more than one target and putting a rice paper target at 100, shoot through it to a target at 1000 and see what it looks like.
Bullets are not out of balance, going to sleep, they are stable or not within inches of the muzzle, not downrange.
The elliptical swirl people like to use to demonstrate the rotate of a bullet is microscopic and the swirl demonstrates are nothing more than exaggerations of the truth in order to see it.
Your gun is a dumb machine shooting a dumb bullet, there is no pilot and needs outside influence to change things. That influence is usually the shooter. Hence the Human Factor which no book talks about, they propose these drifts and things in a vacuum. Remember when they model stuff on a computer using Point Mass there is no bullet.
I believe the human factor is the most likely cause of this but I also believe dispersion caused by imperfect bullets magnified by the rotational spin of the bullet close to the muzzle is a real thing. Some bullets are spinning at 260,000 rpm's or faster as they leave the muzzle and no one really knows what's happening to that projectile and the insane amount of heat generated against the jacket as it contacts the rifling. Is it somewhat distorted until it sheds some velocity and rpm downrange as it cools and that allows it to maintain a tighter path on its rotational axis therefore staying closer to the actual point of aim? Obviously the higher the quality of the bullet, imperfections are minimized but there may be some things happening to bullets that are impossible to account for.
I remember someone telling me once that someone they knew in the industry that shot for his entire adult life found that the most accurate rifles he ever shot were launching projectiles around 200,000 rpm's +/- 10%. Nothing was ever spoken about groups being better at distance just that keeping the spin to a minimum correlated to better accuracy.
Can spinning them at crazy speeds cause the over-turning torque to deviate them slightly off their rotational axis until the rpm's slow down? That's a question better answered by someone much smarter than myself.
I remember someone telling me once that someone they knew in the industry that shot for his entire adult life found that the most accurate rifles he ever shot were launching projectiles around 200,000 rpm's +/- 10%. Nothing was ever spoken about groups being better at distance just that keeping the spin to a minimum correlated to better accuracy.
Can spinning them at crazy speeds cause the over-turning torque to deviate them slightly off their rotational axis until the rpm's slow down? That's a question better answered by someone much smarter than myself.
Spin does not bleed off the same way as velocity,
You can damage a bullet by over-spinning it, using too tight a twist and that damage can be invisible or visible. The invisible damage will throw the bullet off-balance, but it's not a guarantee it will happen to every bullet shot out of the barrel. Different jackets mean different effects.
Bullets are either stable when they leave or they are not, there is really no middle ground because they wouldn't group.
The telling factor in all this is the calibers most people "experience" this, magnums, it's recoil thing as nobody has been able to demonstrate a big group at 100 and a tiny one at 1000 from the same shots. If the bullets are unstable the group is gone, as simple as that. There is always a cause as Shooting is an IF - THAN proposition, if you do this, than that will happen.
It's not spin, we are pretty good at twisting barreling for the right caliber, especially today.
You can damage a bullet by over-spinning it, using too tight a twist and that damage can be invisible or visible. The invisible damage will throw the bullet off-balance, but it's not a guarantee it will happen to every bullet shot out of the barrel. Different jackets mean different effects.
Bullets are either stable when they leave or they are not, there is really no middle ground because they wouldn't group.
The telling factor in all this is the calibers most people "experience" this, magnums, it's recoil thing as nobody has been able to demonstrate a big group at 100 and a tiny one at 1000 from the same shots. If the bullets are unstable the group is gone, as simple as that. There is always a cause as Shooting is an IF - THAN proposition, if you do this, than that will happen.
It's not spin, we are pretty good at twisting barreling for the right caliber, especially today.
I think people are also confused about diagrams showing a spiral path for the tip of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle. That is called precession, and that can indeed be more prominent and then settle down. However, the center of mass of the bullet is still going in a smooth arc! It would be impossible for the center of mass of the bullet to travel in any spiral because there is no force acting on it externally. And this wouldn't increase short range group size, it would just cause the bullet to impact a few degrees rotated.
I think people are also confused about diagrams showing a spiral path for the tip of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle. That is called precession, and that can indeed be more prominent and then settle down. However, the center of mass of the bullet is still going in a smooth arc! It would be impossible for the center of mass of the bullet to travel in any spiral because there is no force acting on it externally. And this wouldn't increase short range group size, it would just cause the bullet to impact a few degrees rotated.
So based on the center example in this diagram, is it not possible for 5 shots to group larger at close range if the nose of the bullet is a few degrees off it's center axis?
That is super exaggerate for example. If the nose is far enough off to skew a group then youre going to have to be unstable and tumbling, it wont ever shoot well. If the bullet did hit all thrown out to the side like that above pic you would have a long tear in the paper as the bullet continues forwards, not a small circle.
So... no.
Yes, it does those little exaggerated shapes but it does them microscopically and at 2-300k rpms. That bullet is spinning in the air and in one second of flight time the bullet has spun a complete revolution 3-5,000 times before hitting the target. If by the time a properly stabilized bullet has had the chance to get off axis it has spun itself around to pull in exactly the opposite direction back on axis, aka, spinning cancels out the tumble by immediately putting the tumble on the opposite side to cancel out.
Look up yaw of repose and gyroscopic stability
A football spirals through the air just like a bullet, notice how if it isnt thrown as a spiral its all shitty and a shitty spiral flys like a wounded duck? Once it starts wobbling off its center axis faster than it can turn itself around and self center again any hopes of accuracy go out the window.
Edit: read this for brain explosions https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...llets-extended-reformatted-version.8/download
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight.
Some people think a bullet is unstable at closer ranges.
Yet that bullet can somehow follow a predictable path that we can dope and use every time?
Am I getting this correct???
Some people think a bullet is unstable at closer ranges.
Yet that bullet can somehow follow a predictable path that we can dope and use every time?
Am I getting this correct???
I think people are also confused about diagrams showing a spiral path for the tip of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle. That is called precession, and that can indeed be more prominent and then settle down. However, the center of mass of the bullet is still going in a smooth arc! It would be impossible for the center of mass of the bullet to travel in any spiral because there is no force acting on it externally. And this wouldn't increase short range group size, it would just cause the bullet to impact a few degrees rotated.
I really don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but the video I posted earlier clearly shows in slow motion how the pellet does actually travel in a spiral orbit... for whatever reason. So it's not impossible for this to occur, since it occurs.
I've read books as well and can Parrot on like most, just regurgitating my interpretation of what I've read or heard. Most people just accept a point if it is argued enthusiastically enough by someone they perceive as credible.
I think that the effect noted may simply be a less understood biproduct of another more understood effect, or simply something that is lost in the interpretation of printed material. Possibly something about the spin rate per forward inch increasing down range.
All I know is that I've printed more 1 inch groups at 300 yards than I have 0.3 inch groups at 100 yards. You could argue that I simply shoot more at 300 than 100, which would not be wrong. So then we entertain the possibility of Confirmation Bias, or Dumb Luck.
Last edited:
No one said anything about the bullet being unstable. We are talking about a projectile being spun so fast it deviates off it's flight path until the rotation slows down enough to allow it to trace on it's intended path. It's been talked about for years as epicyclic swerve and although Bryan Litz acknowledged he could not prove the theory as a cause for dispersion, he did acknowledge that tighter groups at long range is a real thing and Frank has alluded to the shooter as the most likely cause. Big difference from flying unstable to an arc of motion that decreases as distance increases.
Again, your theory is that he bullet is unstable enough to not group well, but it is still predictable in flight? You don’t see how that is at odds? Of course Bryan says he can’t disprove it. He’s a rational thinker who will always qualifies his statements as he should.
Shooter is the issue. Not the rifle or the bullet. The post is about whether a rifle can shoot better at distance than closer. The answer is no, it cannot. A shooter can.
Last edited:
With epicyclic swerve youre talking about the pitch and yaw angles in relation to its flight path as shown on the left but thats just the bullets angle in relation to its axis of movement (and again its tiny, like a degree or two only off axis). On the right is the actual flight path of the bullet moving as the shooter would view it at that articular point in space along the flight path from a straight line view. But at no point do those show the actual group size itself being larger or smaller due to that, just where the group is located in relation to line of aim.
It's interesting how some of the best gun builders in the industry told me years ago I needed a 1-9.3 twist for 300 gr bullets for my Lapua. Said don't worry if it groups like shit at 100 yards because you need the extra spin to reach out at long distance but that bullet will go to sleep and hammer out past 1000 yards.
I'm guessing they knew the bullet was stable coming out of the muzzle.
I'm guessing they knew the bullet was stable coming out of the muzzle.
Some of the best barrel makers also give a barrel break in procedure.
Points like this are comical.
Many years ago, when I got out the military and before I got into LE. I worked for a sprinkler company briefly.
I won’t go into detail on dry vs wet sprinkler systems, but air holds a flapper down in the valve which holds the water back until a head is popped letting the air escape.
I saw the gauge showing the air pressure at 15 psi (or something like that, I don’t remember the actual amount, just the scenario) and the gauge under showing the water pressure at 60psi.
I asked the guy who was regarded as the best sprinkler fitter around. He’d been doing it 35yrs. Everyone went to him for anything.
I asked “why is there less air pressure than water pressure and it’s holding it back?”
He told me, matter of factly, that 1psi of air was equal to 4psi of water.
But, he was the best. He must be correct right?
Similar threads
