“Your groups are too small” vs barrel life

[MagnumManiac]

Actually, their designs are different than others out there. Through collecting doppler radar data on thousands of rounds fired, they identified and recently patented a meplat diameter to caliber ratio that significantly decreased bullet drag variability. They proved that highly pointed meplats have a lower, but less consistent, drag. A slightly flattened meplat increased the drag marginally, but produced a much more consistent drag. The ratio is what is important and what they were awarded the patent for.

From an article in OutdoorLife 5/21/2024 "To reduce drag variability, the diameter of the flat on the meplat must fall between .08 and .16 times the diameter of the bullet."

I'm not referring to their bullets. I do not, will not, ever use Hornady bullets in my rifles. I prefer SUPERIOR bullets than those offered by them.
If you want to prove that this, so called discovery by them, is in fact common knowledge regarding small tips on bullets, how long has the RDF been around?
The RDF shoots better than ANY Hornady bullet.

Cheers.

 

[bfarms]

I agree with duckman. If the first 2 shots aren't even close, I'm adjusting something. If my cold bore and follow up aren't in a ragged hole I'm not happy.
All Mine are hunting rifles so if it takes more than those first 2 shots to kill I have issues anyways

 

[VenatusDominus]

I'm not referring to their bullets. I do not, will not, ever use Hornady bullets in my rifles. I prefer SUPERIOR bullets than those offered by them.
If you want to prove that this, so called discovery by them, is in fact common knowledge regarding small tips on bullets, how long has the RDF been around?
The RDF shoots better than ANY Hornady bullet.

Cheers.

WOW! You harbor some serious ANIMOSITY toward Hornady. I am not here to promote Hornady, I use some of their products and I use others as well. I do appreciate the scientific approach their engineers and balisticians take towards the shooting sports and their willingness to share their findings. It makes for a better shooting community when scientific knowledge and facts are shared.

As far as small tips on bullets... I come from a medical and engineering background, and it isn't always the person making the discovery that gets the credit, it is most often the person that publishes the findings first. In this case Nosler may have figured it out, but they failed to describe, publish or patent their findings, HORNADY did, as such, THEY get the credit for figuring out the ratio of meplat to bullet diameter that minimizes drag variability. You can HATE on Hornady until the sun goes down, but it doesn't change the VALIDITY of the science the are publishing, it's just another "because I said so" argument without anything to back it up. (I know how to use the caps lock key as well )

 

[VenatusDominus]

Deleted

 

[Mike D Texas]

It does matter. Groups get bigger with more shots because you start to see more of the worse than average shots. Until you pull the trigger you have no way of knowing if a shot will be better or worse than average. When you only care about 1 shot what matters is how your gun performs at worst, not on average. If your hunting rifle shoots 1 MOA over many shots (which is pretty darn good for a hunting rifle) it's irresponsible to treat it as a 1/2 MOA gun because you can print 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups.

We can disagree.

When shooters that are doing it for money say it's a waste of time, I tend to listen to them rather than those that sell bullets.

 

[VenatusDominus]

We can disagree.

When shooters that are doing it for money say it's a waste of time, I tend to listen to them rather than those that sell bullets.

So what is your take on F-class shooter Keith Glasscock's video where takes his best, worst and mediocre 3 shot seating depth ladder test results, loads 33 of each and gets groups that are statistically the same? (Video link in post #64 on page 5)

 

[Mike D Texas]

So what is your take on F-class shooter Keith Glasscock's video where takes his best, worst and mediocre 3 shot seating depth ladder test results, loads 33 of each and gets groups that are statistically the same?

I haven't watched the attached video. However I am speaking more to specifics, and others here have mentioned it too. If your goal is say 1/2 MOA groups and immediately after 2-3 shots your group exceeds that, the why waste more time, components and barrel life?

Move in and start over with a new load. Now maybe 10-30 shot will help remove any doubt to your affirmative zero but for load dev, in my experience large sample sizes are a waste if time.

My 1" hunting rifle was able to put 3 shots back to back on a 36" plate at 1 mile. Even if the group was 17.6" at a mile, it's still a 1" rifle. And I've never shot more than a 5 shot group with it.

 

[VenatusDominus]

I haven't watched the attached video. However I am speaking more to specifics, and others here have mentioned it too. If your goal is say 1/2 MOA groups and immediately after 2-3 shots your group exceeds that, the why waste more time, components and barrel life?

Move in and start over with a new load. Now maybe 10-30 shot will help remove any doubt to your affirmative zero but for load dev, in my experience large sample sizes are a waste if time.

My 1" hunting rifle was able to put 3 shots back to back on a 36" plate at 1 mile. Even if the group was 17.6" at a mile, it's still a 1" rifle. And I've never shot more than a 5 shot group with it.

Totally agree, if the first few shots of a load are larger than your goal, time to cut bait and star over, shooting more will not shrink the group. But if your first three shots are 1/4 MOA, then assuming you have 1/4 MOA load, based on the three shot group is foolish.

In the video, his seating depth ladder demonstrated a best 3 shot group (load #1) of 0.183" and a worst three shot group (load #3) of 0.374". After increasing his sample size to 33, the group size for the 0.183" load measured 0.7969" and for the 0.374" load measured 0.6840". He analyzed smaller 5 shot groups from the data and found that the #1 load most often produced the smaller 5 groups, but those groups themselves "walked" around the point of aim much more. The #3 load had larger 5 shot groups but were overall better centered about the point of aim, thus accounting for the overall smaller 33 shot group of load #3.