Vote for Democrats because they stand up for the working man.
Had a female motorcyclist tell me that she couldn't ride the bigger bikes because she wasn't heavy enough to lean them over for the corners. I have no idea how she managed to ride without the most basic fundamentals of counter-steering.
This is around the same time I was riding my dad's Kawasaki Concours (Junior/Senior in high school...maybe 17) and at that time I was under 130 lbs with my boots on and could handle a 750 lb bike just fine...
one thing that irks me is when police officers use codes in normal conversation
10-4 im 10-7. Thats assuming our 10 codes are the same. But honestly I've heard guy sitting at a bar more than once talking like that. I guess they were trying to impress a badge bunny. I dont get it.
I was on another forum this week and a guy complained that his AR-15 with a detachable carry handle sight was shooting 4" right at 100 yards. In his opinion, something was wrong with the rifle because it should shoot straight with the rear sight centered and no wind.
There was. The nut behind the trigger was the wrong one.
Every AR I own w/ an A post front site has the rear site cranked to the left. It's annoying as I'm OCD.
So, not related to shooting, but since you brought up flat Earthers...
I used to write for a space and technology site, and let me tell you, my posts were like ginormous targets for the flat Earthers to comment on. My favorite interchange involved the flat-Earth map, which is a circle that has the North Pole in the center, and the South Pole spread all around the edges - which also means that the entire southern hemisphere is dramatically expanded. When I couldn't any sense of logic past this one guy's ears (eyes), I finally asked him:
Why does a flight from San Francisco to London take 10 hours and a flight from Johannesburg to Perth take 9 hours, but on your map it is nearly three times farther?
His response:
"Flights can be faked."
I know a flat earther, and yes I’ve heard that as well as cameras are made to put a curve in the picture to water would fall off the South Pole and gravity isn’t real. I’ve heard it all, please don’t think less of me.
There are more people than I care to admit who are a lot easier to shoot than to argue with.
As long as you don't think less of me for thinking I could cram an ounce of logic into these people's brains. I finally ended up getting them all banned from the site. And if you want a really good laugh, look up the video of Buzz Aldrin putting a fist to a flat-Eather's face who was pestering him about all his work being fake.
I've met him (Buzz Aldrin, not the guy who got punched). Super nice guy, but when you've done what he has and then you have some moron telling you it was all a grand lie... well, let's just say my opinion of Mr. Aldrin went up even more after that episode.
Actually it is than.
I'd rather eat meat than eat vegetables.
I'm so hungry I ate meat then I ate vegetables.
Litz disproved this bullshit theory of bullets “going to sleep”, or stabilizing in-flight years ago. Epicyclic swerve is not miraculous at all. It’s the marksman sucking. I have th go to a public range to overhear bullshit gun myths like that.
Being an Engineer is no garantee that they don’t make mistakes. Too much evidence about that.
No, he didn't.
He showed a deflection graph showing how it could happen. It's somewhere in the beginning of this thread.
His synopsis is that it's the marksman's fault is incorrect. Because, as of yet, while we have improved upon mechanical perfection, we are not perfect. We will never be perfect. Even though we do get better. That is why we try to measure in absolutes instead of given quantities.
I would have to say you don't understand physics if you think a bullet can go from a contained solid environment (the barrel) to an uncontained gaseous environment (the air past the muzzle) while turbulent hot gasses are following and surrounding the bullet, while rotational energy is taking effect. Like there are no anomalies in either bullet or the gaseous substance it enters into after leaving the containment of the barrel.
Last edited:
I'm not here to argue with you, but as shooters we thrive on misconceptions. If a rifle groups 3" at 100, bullets have already left the flight path and common sense says they cannot return or remain that tight the farther it foes. At 3", it can not all be vertical or horizonal, it is a combination of a load falling apart the minute it leaves the barrel.
The go to sleep theory was always pointed a larger caliber bullets, or long for caliber. One easy way to determine if a bullet is not stable at 100 yards is to buy a sheet of project board(tag board to us old fucks), and get it as tight as possible to cardboard backer. If your bullet holes are not perfectly rd and you can see a trailing edge around the hole, you have your answer. Guys today are shooting groups at 100 yards with 338's, 375's, 408's, etc... that yrs ago we never saw, I personally believe it stems from more effort being put into actually shooting that close. Before guys settled on something at 600 or farther and ran with it.
Even a 1/4 moa gun may not retain that group size at distance. I have never seen a rifle that grouped shitty at 100 group well at distance. Even if you develop a load at 1k, you bring it back to 100, it is going shoot good.
I’m moving abroad and the company contracted by the govt came to pack up our belongings. We were signing the paperwork and I noticed the date was wrong. Before I could say anything, his coworker asked him why he didn’t put the month. He stated that he didn’t want to confuse anyone by putting the “1” on there. So the date was just the day and year.
Not going to get into the first part. But to add to the last. One fairly bad theory is how you need to develop loads at 3,6,or 1k yds.
Here’s a link I post all over the place. Basically, if the gun runs good at 100, it’s going to run good at 1k.
Common sense is not the same as physics. Quite often, “common sesnse” does not include a lot of tangible variables
I saw that post for yrs in my time on accurate shooter, never made it past the first post.
I have seen more loads developed at 100 fall apart than loads done at 500 yards. If you want to develop at 100 and expect it to hold, you most likely are doing the same things that people who develop farther do. You are just testing at closer ranges.
I don’t want to get myself mired in this discussion, but the example of a 3” group at 100 yards and still a 3” group at 300 yards is an exaggerated argument that has no merit to counter the claim that bullets stabilize further down range. A conflagration claim if you will. The nuances of a non-ideal group at 100 yards and more consistent groups at certain defined distances down range are a completely different things than an exaggerated claim such as above, that nobody is making.
Physics (or real science) supports the fact that bullets can and often do stabilize a some point farther away than the muzzle end of your rifle. Here’s a fun article posted by Jim Boatright that you can read if you are truly interested in this phenomenon:
www.snipershide.com
Physics (or real science) supports the fact that bullets can and often do stabilize a some point farther away than the muzzle end of your rifle. Here’s a fun article posted by Jim Boatright that you can read if you are truly interested in this phenomenon:
Hyper -Stabilized Rifle Bullets--Extended/Reformatted Version
Jim Boatright asked if I would put his extended and reformatted version of his hyper-stabilized rifle bullets paper here. Sincerely, Theis
www.snipershide.com
I agree there, lol
Someone needs to show me a rifle that shoots 3" at 100, and stay 3" at 500, and I will demand a 2nd shooter repeat it. I have rifles I could purposely shoot 4" at 100 and still shoot 4" at 1k. I guess there is no buy in here.
So, you admit that it’s not the load development distance that matters, it’s the method and the techniques used that matter?
I am not going to read the article, but like I said earlier, your paper at 100 should tell a story. I can find some pics I think, a friend sent to me with this fantastic group at 100 yards, yes it was one hole,, but the paper around the hole was darkened bad, you could see bullet contact. The backing of his target was cloroplast, and the first hole was sucking the next bullets into the same hole, Either way it was a great group, but not the eraser size hole the pic presented itself as. Paper tells a story if you look close enough.I don’t want to get myself mired in this discussion, but the example of a 3” group at 100 yards and still a 3” group at 300 yards is an exaggerated argument that has no merit to counter the claim that bullets stabilize further down range. A conflagration claim if you will. The nuances of a non-ideal group at 100 yards and more consistent groups at certain defined distances down range are a completely different things than an exaggerated claim such as above, that nobody is making.
Physics (or real science) supports the fact that bullets can and often do stabilize a some point farther away than the muzzle end of your rifle. Here’s a fun article posted by Jim Boatright that you can read if you are truly interested in this phenomenon:
Hyper -Stabilized Rifle Bullets--Extended/Reformatted Version
Jim Boatright asked if I would put his extended and reformatted version of his hyper-stabilized rifle bullets paper here. Sincerely, Theis
No question that the paper tells a story. And just like the linked thread the @Dthomas3523 posted from Accurate Shooter shows, there are way too many people that do not know what they are, or should be, looking for when developing a load on paper. There is always at least one guy wanting to know why that “one hole” group is the wrong one, when the charges on either side of that group are not even close to the same poa/poi relationship.
This may actually be the best argument for using at least some longer distance target verification during load development or verification. It takes some of the guesswork out for those that are not really sure what they are doing. Just read the posts on just about any “Help me with my OCW reading” thread here. There are all kinds of guys with advice that obviously don’t know themselves what to look for.
This may actually be the best argument for using at least some longer distance target verification during load development or verification. It takes some of the guesswork out for those that are not really sure what they are doing. Just read the posts on just about any “Help me with my OCW reading” thread here. There are all kinds of guys with advice that obviously don’t know themselves what to look for.
No shit. I am retired, I get a lot of range time, so I see so many things. When I talk about paper at 100, I have witnessed on countless occasions guys shooting long bullets in slow twist barrels. The bullet may not be out of whack yet at 100 and groups are not bad. But shooting at steel at 400 or so, now it is shooting 10 feet. If you walk down to 100 and look close, it was right there, but ignored through the scope because group looked nice.
I’m more of a .5 moa @100 and a .333 or .4 moa @500. Note how the angle might decrease a little bit, but the physical group size still grows.
I agree that the 3”@100 and 3”@500 is pretty much impossible. Rotational energy isn’t going to save that group when it starts that wide.
Nor will it when you see a “tip” in a keyhole. That bullet is too unstable to ever group downrange consistenly.
Added: I guess it boils down to how far people want to turn the phenomenon into myth and beyond.
Good answer, half way into this shit show I had to ask myself WTF are you doing here, and who really cares. Guys need to learn it for themselves, myth, theory, phenonemen, until you experience it, it could any of those 3 or more. I have all but giving up reading about shit that can happen, if something does not go my way, I try to fix, and usually can. I am getting too old to complicate shit, or have others complicate it for me.
If it can be done closer (less environmental factors) then why mess with longer ranges?
I tend to listen to guys who have won tons of matches and done more testing than most of us combined.
Agreed. It’s knowledge based. If you know what to look for.
If you don’t, I can see why you need distance to open up the groups and make it more obvious.
I tend to listen to 1K benchrest shooters who test at 1k. if a load holds close waterline at 1k, it is holding it the whole way there, and a great deal farther. Can you develop a load in less rds at 100? Plus any load needs verification, you develop at distance, every shot taken is verification to a degree, and it becomes way easier to discard shit.
Why are we having this discussion in this subforum? I think I recall not that long ago, you shot factory ammo because hand loading took up too much of your time.
Well, if ya only shoot at 1k, it makes sense to test at 1k. I test load development at 100, and if everything looks good, then I move on to longer ranges to true MV, get my dope, and see if anything falls apart (besides me). 1K? Ain't nobody got time for that......
Haha, I agree, I have done 3 rifles at 1K, and it wasn't that big of a deal, larger cases though. We have a huge steel target at 500, it only makes sense to use it for development. Instantaneous results in your scope. I think it all boils down to what degree of accuracy one settles for, and we are all different there.
Get married.....you can have sex anytime you want.....we all know how that worked out
I suck at shooting 100 yards on paper. Absolutely suck. So I have days where I shoot 1 inch groups at 100 and 300 yards.
But in all honesty, if I have a good shooter on my rifle, they do much better than me at 100 yards.
So how much of this myth is bad shooter, not the bullet going to sleep?
But in all honesty, if I have a good shooter on my rifle, they do much better than me at 100 yards.
So how much of this myth is bad shooter, not the bullet going to sleep?
100% shooter. If it was the bullet, the good shooter wouldn't do any better with your rifle. Could be a parallax issue, but that would likely affect the other shooter as well.
This thread is turning out to be really ironic.
So, basically, you don’t have a valid argument against erik‘s method except “I don’t like it.”
The thing is though, those winning 1k yard br matches ARE testing at 1k.
I like the cortina thread but its mainly a introductory thread for new loaders to keep them from going off the rails and to control what factors they are able to, once you have a bit of time and you really want to know the results you sort of have to test at distance to validate the findings and optimize.
Similar threads
