Range Report MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

#3
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I got this 1.2 MOA group at 500 yds and with same ammo/rifle combo got a 2.5 at 300 yds just prior last week, and have heard others talk about it and wanted to know if anyone else had any experiences. thanks.
 
#4
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

i dont fire groups much , find it boring , but when i zeroed my 308 at 100 i was a bit dissapointed , wwhen i fired groups at 200 and 300 and they were better than 100, i cant explain it apart from bullet not going to sleep till past 100? maybe thats stupid or just in my head but i have seen what you are on about
 
#5
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MedCpt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anybody got any personal experience with this? Your MOA group results with a rifle/ammo combo is better at a longer range than shorter? </div></div>

Actually,if you go on the Sierra website,they have some really interesting information on this subject.It is dry reading but basically what they found was;with some bullets they tested,the group it would shoot at 270yds(Arbitrary,don't remember exactly),it would also shoot at 600yds as it took that long for it to stabilize or "Go to Sleep".
 
#8
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I have seen this happen as well -- on multiple occasions. From what I understand, the bullet does not come out of the muzzle fully stabilized. As a result, it basically corkscrews around it's flight path initially. At some point along the trajectory, it stabilizes completely and stays more directly along the ceterline of it's flight path.
 
#10
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I've seen it in a custom .300 Win Mag. Although it grouped pretty well at 100, it didn't start to really shine until it got out past 200. The explaination I was given was that the .300 Win Mag didn't have time to stabilize at 100yds.
 
#11
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I understand that it is fairly accepted that some bullets may not go to sleep at closer ranges but man, it doesn't make any sense to me. The idea of the bullet cork screwing around the line of trajectory makes the most sense but what force is acting on the bullet that would cause it to return to the line of trajectory when it is already off of it? Once a projectile is moving at an angle to the intended line of trajectory, I don't see how it would influenced to move back to it. To my simple mind, it would be like a shotgun shooting a smaller pattern at farther distances than it did at closer distances. There would have to be some outside force pushing the projectiles with the greatest deviation from the center back toward the center.
 
#12
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

and I quote,

"The bottom line is that epicyclic swerve cannot cause smaller angular groups at longer ranges." <span style="font-style: italic">B. Litz</span>
 
#13
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I have an AR10T that no matter what load I try will only shoot just over 1" at 100 yards and just over 2" at 200. I was disappointed, but then I pushed it out to 500 yards, and somehow was able to shoot 3-4" groups regularly. From 500 on is where I found "the" load (43.4grns RL15 and 175grn SMK)at 2550. Any faster and it opens up. Maybe the sleeping bullet plays a part in my mystery also.
 
#14
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

Loads in my .260 that shot GREAT @ 100 were Shit @ 300

My load now is OK @ best @ 100, but does real well further out
smile.gif


Science may say it's not Possible, but reality begs to argue.


Only way I made it right in my head is to think of it as a backwards Tornado.... as it gets closer to the target it "Gyrates" in a tighter cone. It don't have to make Sense if it sounds good....
 
#15
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

Seen a .17 rem do that. The groups accually measured smaller at 200 than 100 and smaller at 300 than 200. Didn't see anything past that.

My old 7WSM with 180 bergers would kinda do that. about .5 moa at 100 and 1/3-1/2 moa at 300.

When making a long range load I try to test the load at 500 or further. even at 1000 if I can get a very calm day.
 
#18
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I call this phenomena a "shit day at the range"

I have gone to the range and shot groups about 2" at 400 yards, and then gone back to 100 and the groups are 1"... in theory, if i can pull a 2" group at 400 yards, I could pull in a 0.5" group at 100. And the truth is I have on many occasions, but on others ive simply put it down to better shooting at 400 yards than I did at 100 yards.

I scratch my head sometimes over these mysteries but then I try to forget about it.
 
#19
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

Part of what may be coming into play here also, is accepting poor data as our baseline. Frank will not allow 3 shot groups for a reason. 5 shot groups are better, but far more are required for a statistically accurate picture of what is *really* happening with a given load in a given rifle on a given day at a given distance.

If we were more diciplined about our data collection, we'd probably find that most .25 moa rifles were really .4-.5" and real, honest-to-goodness sub-1 moa rifles are a lot rarer than we might think.

So, realistically, unless the same loads are shot on the same day in the same conditions, with a much greater sample size than typically fired to determine our "groups". We may be guilty of inadvertently cherry picking.

Frank talks over and over again about the human factor, and that absolutely cannot be discounted either. Incorrect parallax, different cheekweld or body position for different distances, even if slight can influence group size and POI.

Whatever it is, it would seem that one of the brightest minds in ballistics today believes that it is NOT "bullets going to sleep".

John
 
#20
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

It's not bullets going to sleep. It's almost certainly the shooter. For one, it' much harder to see the target at longer ranges, so I suspect there's less hyper-refining of the sight picture than goes on at 100y. In my case at least, longer targets get less attention paid to refining the sight picture and more on executing perfect fundamentals. I, too, have had the experience of a rifle seeming to shoot better at 300 than at 100, and I'm convinced it's me.
 
#21
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

It's crown vs base. Boat-tails are more known for this than flat base bullets. Any imperfection in the crown or bullet base or both will induce yaw that will be over come by spin down range. More spin and it's gone sooner.

Boat-tails are way less forgiving than flat base bullets, that's why bench rest guys almost always use flat bases.
 
#22
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tim K</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not bullets going to sleep. It's almost certainly the shooter. For one, it' much harder to see the target at longer ranges, so I suspect there's less hyper-refining of the sight picture than goes on at 100y. In my case at least, longer targets get less attention paid to refining the sight picture and more on executing perfect fundamentals. I, too, have had the experience of a rifle seeming to shoot better at 300 than at 100, and I'm convinced it's me. </div></div>


I'm inclined to agree with this 100%. In reality, the smallest groups we shoot are typically the ones we can't see being punched one bullet after the other. Then probably choking on that fifth one.
 
#25
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that silly lil' thing called <span style="font-style: italic">Science</span> says it ain't so, it ain't so.</div></div>

Same Science that predicted the BC of the .300 Bergers ? Or that they would Fly Straight ?
 
#26
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ~Ace~</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that silly lil' thing called <span style="font-style: italic">Science</span> says it ain't so, it ain't so.</div></div>

Same Science that predicted the BC of the .300 Bergers ? Or that they would Fly Straight ? </div></div>

Can't argue with facts.

And, I'm referring to the science Bryan Litz puts forth. Not the crap we receive from manufacturers.
 
#28
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tim K</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not bullets going to sleep. It's almost certainly the shooter. For one, it' much harder to see the target at longer ranges, so I suspect there's less hyper-refining of the sight picture than goes on at 100y. In my case at least, longer targets get less attention paid to refining the sight picture and more on executing perfect fundamentals. I, too, have had the experience of a rifle seeming to shoot better at 300 than at 100, and I'm convinced it's me. </div></div>


+1. I have incurred this phenonema, and it is usually corrected by turning down my magnification, adjusting for parralax and making an effort to give my 100 yd groups the same concentration I give my 600 yard efforts.

Also, any statistician will tell you you can't tell much about a population (rifle grouping) by a 3 or even a 5 lot sample. Unless you have shot fairly large group sizes (10m or more) under the same conditions and then compared results, you are really not conducting a meaningful exercise.

Finally, having a bit of a ballistics background, I gotta go with Litz on projectiles not magically gaining precision downrange. Once a projectile has left its intended trajectory, it does not come back without some external correction, e.g. user controlled guidance system. :)
 
#29
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ~Ace~</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that silly lil' thing called <span style="font-style: italic">Science</span> says it ain't so, it ain't so.</div></div>

Same Science that predicted the BC of the .300 Bergers ? Or that they would Fly Straight ? </div></div>

Can't argue with facts.

And, I'm referring to the science Bryan Litz puts forth. Not the crap we receive from manufacturers.</div></div>

Brian is the one who made the Prediction...For Berger ! NOT taking anything away from him, just Proving that Even a Rocket Scientist can be Flawed
smile.gif
 
#30
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: larbhills</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that it is fairly accepted that some bullets may not go to sleep at closer ranges but man, it doesn't make any sense to me. The idea of the bullet cork screwing around the line of trajectory makes the most sense but what force is acting on the bullet that would cause it to return to the line of trajectory when it is already off of it? Once a projectile is moving at an angle to the intended line of trajectory, I don't see how it would influenced to move back to it. To my simple mind, it would be like a shotgun shooting a smaller pattern at farther distances than it did at closer distances. There would have to be some outside force pushing the projectiles with the greatest deviation from the center back toward the center. </div></div>

I think the theory was that stability is dependent on linear velocity, and rotational velocity among other things. Linear velocity reduces faster than rotational so the bullet stabilises as it slows down.

I can get that and I suppose I can understand the argument that this will cause less deviation. Not sure I believe that this produces smaller groups at longer range though
 
#31
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chanonry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: larbhills</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that it is fairly accepted that some bullets may not go to sleep at closer ranges but man, it doesn't make any sense to me. The idea of the bullet cork screwing around the line of trajectory makes the most sense but what force is acting on the bullet that would cause it to return to the line of trajectory when it is already off of it? Once a projectile is moving at an angle to the intended line of trajectory, I don't see how it would influenced to move back to it. To my simple mind, it would be like a shotgun shooting a smaller pattern at farther distances than it did at closer distances. There would have to be some outside force pushing the projectiles with the greatest deviation from the center back toward the center. </div></div>

I think the theory was that stability is dependent on linear velocity, and rotational velocity among other things. Linear velocity reduces faster than rotational so the bullet stabilises as it slows down.

I can get that and I suppose I can understand the argument that this will cause less deviation. Not sure I believe that this produces smaller groups at longer range though </div></div>

Me too. I can understand a bullet developing less wobble as it moves along its trajectory. However, if that same bullet has already deviated from the center of the group and is therefor moving at some tiny angle to the rest of the shots, what makes that bullet move back toward the other shots as distances increase?
 
#33
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I trust B. Litz's work totally. If a bullet's going to be unstable, it will be so from start to finish of the trajectory, and if it's stable out of the muzzle, it will not go unstable during its supersonic flight regime unless acted upon by external forces that have nothing to do with ballistics.

I believe that observed non-linear deviation is a product of aiming error, probably resulting at least intially from improperly corrected parallax.

It's my view that the things we know and can predict about deviation are less reliable as distances increase. If it's not being influenced by aiming error, the rest of the factors will mitigate toward more deviation with distance, and not toward less.

Greg
 
#34
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I completely think this phenomenon is NOT bullets going to sleep. But I don't get the parallax theory either. It seems if the parallax is out of whack or incorrectly adjusted, the error would be magnified as the range increases. I always thought parallax error was negligible at short ranges and only really became apparent at longer ranges.
 
#35
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

Parallax is only 'right' for one range. Any other range there will be error. Even with scopes that have an adjustable parallax (objective or side 'focus'). That setting is only right for one single distance.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are almost <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> accurate as to where the optic needs to be set. So a shooter who's shooting at 600 yards sets the dial to 600 and assumes the parallax is adjusted out... usually not.

Another common mistake is that the parallax is thought of as a 'focus', something to adjust to make the image clear. Not so. Sometimes the proper parallax setting actually results in a sub-optimal target image.

The proper way to adjust parallax is to turn the dial while looking thru the scope and nodding your head up and down, side to side. If the parallax is not adjusted perfectly, the target image will appear to move behind the crosshairs (even with the gun solidly supported). Turn the dial until the crosshairs appear pasted to the target as you move your eye around behind the scope.

Due to the common misunderstandings about parallax, it's very likely that it's responsible for the observed effect of smaller MOA groups at longer range. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the <span style="font-style: italic">only possible</span> explanation.

-Bryan
 
#36
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parallax is only 'right' for one range. Any other range there will be error. Even with scopes that have an adjustable parallax (objective or side 'focus'). That setting is only right for one single distance.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are almost <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> accurate as to where the optic needs to be set. So a shooter who's shooting at 600 yards sets the dial to 600 and assumes the parallax is adjusted out... usually not.

Another common mistake is that the parallax is thought of as a 'focus', something to adjust to make the image clear. Not so. Sometimes the proper parallax setting actually results in a sub-optimal target image.

The proper way to adjust parallax is to turn the dial while looking thru the scope and nodding your head up and down, side to side. If the parallax is not adjusted perfectly, the target image will appear to move behind the crosshairs (even with the gun solidly supported). Turn the dial until the crosshairs appear pasted to the target as you move your eye around behind the scope.

Due to the common misunderstandings about parallax, it's very likely that it's responsible for the observed effect of smaller MOA groups at longer range. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the <span style="font-style: italic">only possible</span> explanation.

-Bryan </div></div>
Mr Litz, I totally get what you're saying about parallax. I'm not suggesting that the shooter sets it at one range and leaves it at that setting for all others. I'm suggesting that if the shooter is incorrectly adjusting parallax by trying to get a perfect focus at whatever range he's shooting at rather than the correct method that you describe, then wouldn't it be more likely that the parallax error will be compounded as the range increases?
 
#37
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Notso</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr Litz, I totally get what you're saying about parallax. I'm not suggesting that the shooter sets it at one range and leaves it at that setting for all others. I'm suggesting that if the shooter is incorrectly adjusting parallax by trying to get a perfect focus at whatever range he's shooting at rather than the correct method that you describe, then wouldn't it be more likely that the parallax error will be compounded as the range increases? </div></div>

I get what you're saying, and that is a more likely scenario. In that case, I think it would cause more error at longer range than short. But that's expected, and wouldn't register as 'weird'.

However, while searching for an explanation for the subject of this thread, parallax can be one possible explanation in the less likely situation where a shooter leaves their parallax set for long range.

I'm not saying this is the only way it can happen, just that in certain instances, parallax could cause the effect.

-Bryan
 
#38
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I think we talked about this in another thread that maybe Brian started on the same subject.

My feeling is, in some cases, because the shooter can't see the impact they are less focused on the target and more on the reticle and target relationship.

It's a common problem with handgun shooters, they <span style="font-style: italic">"look"</span> at the target to see where they hit and they disengage from the shot early sacrificing follow through. We even see this closer with long guns, guys will prairie dog and pick up, or try to see what is happening downrange thus affecting the shots that follow. Jacob calls this the <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">refrigerator hypothesis</span> </span> where as the shooter seeing 3 rounds touching, knowing they will shoot 5, they will move, settle in for the 4th and blow the shot, then on the 5th after the tension has ended because the group he planned on putting on his refrigerator has been blown he goes to back to hitting in the same hole. We mentally defeat ourselves.

Not seeing your target at distance has advantages. At least in my experience... Its hard for people to not focus on the results of each shot, which causes mental adjustments which lead to sub-conscious changes in our position. The opposite is true too.
 
#39
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

It's been a while now and i guess no real data came in...I'd say myth busted...
smile.gif


Seriously though one would have to constantly shoot in such a way (diminishing group @ longer ranges) and quite a few groups (to get statistically significant sample size). My guess would be a combination of factors causes that some shooters are able to fire rifle more correctly at distant target and hence get better grouping (for example heart beat and high magnification scope can cause problems due to a crosshair movement which is "dampened" in lower mags or some shooters are able to deal with it better).

I still hope that someone might come up with some hard data so analysis can be performed as to the one/root cause of it or at least eliminate some...
 
#40
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

I started to see this happen until I started pasting 1" or smaller orange day glow spots in the center of the bull.
after I started aiming smaller my 100y groups got better.
also I get better groups when the bull is just a hair bigger than the cross hairs and I can get it peeking on all 4 corners.

so I think think it is mostly driver induced and then over thought, grasping at a reason.
 
#41
Re: MOA results better at longer range than shorter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still hope that someone might come up with some hard data so analysis can be performed as to the one/root cause of it or at least eliminate some... </div></div>

1k range
2K lb Dead Rest to lock the action into
Weapon Doped for 1K yds and the glass never touch after that, using targets set in flight path for other than 1K
Hand loads, 5 rds at 1K, 750, 500, 250, and 100
See for yourself,... was done north of Dade City Fla. 1982 in a place called Ridge Manor Estates (Northwest of Hwy 301 an SR50) just S/E of the Withlacoochee river.
Weapon was a 1981 Braked, Remington 26" tubed 7MM Rem mag, 168gr, SMK 65.5grs of IMR4831 Rem case, Rem Mag primer. Don't recall OAL of Case or total OAL.

At daylight/break after a storm the AM's were always calm, set smoke see for yourself.

Surely someone here can do this again and report back?

John Giles out of Odessa Fla used a 600 lb block for 45acp testing, so we figgered 2K lb with a braked stick should work as well. Mr. Starrett proved us right in that. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nmacgyver
Velocity variability in factory ammo
Replies
5
Views
142
wade2big
W
V
22 LR Long Range Dispersion, What is the Culprit
Replies
66
Views
2K
beetroot
beetroot
Hecouldgoalltheway
SOLD Weatherby mark V
Replies
7
Views
424
Hecouldgoalltheway
Hecouldgoalltheway
N
Anybody tried Atlanta's 65GR SBT load?
Replies
1
Views
130
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
Tigrexar
Zeiss S3 or S5
Replies
11
Views
355
tlsmith22
tlsmith22
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts