Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Better Groups At Distance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tankgijohn72" data-source="post: 2804286" data-attributes="member: 77441"><p>I used to work in a ballistic test facility. Indoors (no environmental impact whatsoever), shot from mechanical EPVAT rest. No shooter interaction with anything but the technician on the trigger. Sound board at 100 yds, paper target at 300 yds. Shot pattern at 300 yds is identical and 3x larger than sound board data at 100 yds. Repeats every time, and each bullet hole 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc are known in the electronic plot at 100 and the paper holes at 300. This is real data and i was the engineer on the test. At longer ranges maybe 600 yds in the outdoors, you might encounter a scenario in which small wind changes or shooter errors might make the long range group converge a bit in a group or two, but over large shot strings that is unlikely. The apparent convergance at longer ranges is without question attributed to aiming variation. It is impossible to compare a single finite group at 100 yards and another finite group at 300 yds and draw any real conclusions. It can only be done by having data at 100 and 300 on the same group. I might further add that prior to the test, i thought there was some validity to group convergance at longer ranges, hence the interest in the test. After the test, i can promise you that no one is winning $1000 with the shoot through test.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tankgijohn72, post: 2804286, member: 77441"] I used to work in a ballistic test facility. Indoors (no environmental impact whatsoever), shot from mechanical EPVAT rest. No shooter interaction with anything but the technician on the trigger. Sound board at 100 yds, paper target at 300 yds. Shot pattern at 300 yds is identical and 3x larger than sound board data at 100 yds. Repeats every time, and each bullet hole 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc are known in the electronic plot at 100 and the paper holes at 300. This is real data and i was the engineer on the test. At longer ranges maybe 600 yds in the outdoors, you might encounter a scenario in which small wind changes or shooter errors might make the long range group converge a bit in a group or two, but over large shot strings that is unlikely. The apparent convergance at longer ranges is without question attributed to aiming variation. It is impossible to compare a single finite group at 100 yards and another finite group at 300 yds and draw any real conclusions. It can only be done by having data at 100 and 300 on the same group. I might further add that prior to the test, i thought there was some validity to group convergance at longer ranges, hence the interest in the test. After the test, i can promise you that no one is winning $1000 with the shoot through test. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Better Groups At Distance
Top