Applied Ballistics 'Shoot Thru Target' Challenge

[Pdvdh]

Every one of the variables you identified are taken out of play if the very same bullets fired from the same rifle have their group sizes measured at a shorter and longer range. Which is the beauty in Bryan's method of testing. His method doesn't require theoretical speculation. Shoot the rifle, any rifle with any bullets and loads, and measure groups at the two separate ranges. Then calculate moa precision at both ranges.

Winds is the variable that would seem to be in play, since groups should expand more down range under changing wind speeds and directions, compared to shorter ranges. Because the wind will have a longer time to force the bullet to one side or the other.

Besides, if convergence downrange is for real, as many shooters claim to have commonly experienced/witnessed, then the degrading "variables" must not be terribly degrading to downrange precision. In fact, they must enhance downrange precision. In spite of all the claims of improved angular precision downrange compared to close range, no one has yet to deliver that special rifle to Bryan for testing and confirmation that it's the goose that lays the golden eggs.

So other than wind, let the testing begin. Whoops. Testing can't begin until rifles have been presented for testing. Those rifles are proving to be very elusive. Sasquatch and Bigfoot elusive.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

I thought a couple of my rifles exhibited this trait, very consistently so. Until i tried this test, now i better understand the depth of aiming errors at short range.

I even tried the test at a variety of ranges, spoiler alert, the results are always the same.

 

[Mikecr]

Those rifles are proving to be very elusive. Sasquatch and Bigfoot elusive.

Could be something other than the gun, external ballistics, or ammo components. Maybe a scope or shooter needs to be delivered. Maybe conditions need to be matched.
Could be that shooting through targets won't advance understanding of this phenomenon at all..

 

[Pdvdh]

The phenomenon was generated by the observations of shooters firing bullets from their rifle outfits at targets, so the phenomenon should be able to be observed/documented by shooting bullets into targets.

I think the phenomena is a misinterpretation based on different bullets fired at different ranges, and that the phenomena is nonexistant when measuring the precision of the same group of fired bullets at different ranges.

Shooting thru the targets is one way of shooting through those misinterpretations.

Everyone's observations to date have been based on different bullet groups shot at different ranges. That allows for a multitude of influencing explanations. Some of which can be valid when a second group of bullets is fired downrange and measured for precision. Many explanations are now proving to be a fabrication of expanded imaginations, driven by the desire to believe.

It's clear from this Thread that many want to believe.

 

[Danehunter]

AHA!

Now I see what is up. A simple testing of the "convergence at distance" claim with the "suspect rifles", nothing more.

Similar to the old buffalo hunter's claim that his 45/70 Sharps "...shoots flat out to 200 yards then the bullet rises some." ;o)

So I suspect these convergence rifles will continue to be as rare as hens' teeth.

 

[Pdvdh]

AHA!

Now I see what is up. A simple testing of the "convergence at distance" claim with the "suspect rifles", nothing more.

Similar to the old buffalo hunter's claim that his 45/70 Sharps "...shoots flat out to 200 yards then the bullet rises some." ;o)

So I suspect these convergence rifles will continue to be as rare as hens' teeth.

10-4. This is going to require Divine intervention to disrupt the theorieslaws of Physics, Thermodynamics, Entropy, and other principles of science. This will be the equivalent of randomly dropping all the individual parts of a watch on the floor, and finding the parts self-assembled into a fully functional watch. Would a person live long enough to ever document such a thing even once? Let alone with any repeatable consistency?

 

[GLTaylor]

This has been a fantastic read. Thanks to Brian and all that contributed. Thanks also to whomever has resurrected this old post!
George

 

[Mikecr]

Thanks also to whomever has resurrected this old post!

Last post was 5 years ago.. Guess you're thanking yourself?

 

[Stammster]

With 11 pages so far, I must start off by disclosing that I didn't read all 11 pages.

However, I have a theory based on the shooter and technique, rather than the gun/cartridges/bullet/load/scope, etc ... It's a bit of a stretch for rifle shooting off a rock solid bench, but is more believable as one progresses down the path of different "rests" from sandbags, to freehand, and eventually to freehand pistol.

It's all about how the aim to the target is created and when the round is sent. About 30 years ago I had a freehand pistol instructor teach me the hold the sight aim such that the natural movement of the sight picture to the target was such that the barrel of the gun was always perpendicular to the target. If I was covering a target with a fixed circular/figure 8 motion, no matter when I pulled the trigger I would always shoot 1" groups. Now if I moved the target farther out, with the same technique, I would once again shoot 1" groups or just slightly larger. Both front and rear sights moved together, so that the barrel was always perpendicular in the x and y direction. Where the bullet struck was how far away from center I was left, right, above, or below from my pistol bore's center. Follow?

Now the other way to shoot is to always try to fix the point of aim to the center of the target, by varying the angle of the gun (i.e. move the front or rear sight, but not maintaining the same perpendicular technique as describe above. In this case a shot 1" left, would be 2" left at twice the distance, etc.

Maybe it's shooting technique, and not the bullet in flight...even off a rock steady bench hold. Maybe we're shooting more "offhand" then we think. And those who shoot tighter MOA groups at longer ranges are unknowingly keeping their barrel better aligned with perpendicular than those who aren't.

For me, even when I shoot off the bench or sled, I tend to adjust to the target with both hands in order to move the crosshairs to the center of the target, not just the rear of the gun. I typically shoot smaller MOA groups at 200 vs 100, and until Bryan posed the question, I never really gave any thought as to why.

Of course, this theory could be completely off base.

Try it with a hand laser pointer. One by aiming at the target and trying to maintain center with uncontrolled (I.e. 3 degrees of movement). Now try it with 2 degrees of movement (no tilt left or right / up and down).

Crap...after typing all that and editing, I just reviewed 3 posts up and realized this thread was redirected from the dead.

 

[Shootin4fun]

When I shoot a 1 MOA group at 200 and a .5 MO at 350 (2 common target points at my shooting area) I assume that it is me because it's a smaller aim point and I'm being more critical as to when I break the trigger. I've seen it at 100 where I shoot a 1" group, then move to 200 and shoot a 1" group. Or a 1.5" at 200 and 1.5" at 350. Ah, just another day at the range. I can never put my finger on why it would happen other than operator induced.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

When I shoot a 1 MOA group at 200 and a .5 MO at 350 (2 common target points at my shooting area) I assume that it is me because it's a smaller aim point and I'm being more critical as to when I break the trigger. I've seen it at 100 where I shoot a 1" group, then move to 200 and shoot a 1" group. Or a 1.5" at 200 and 1.5" at 350. Ah, just another day at the range. I can never put my finger on why it would happen other than operator induced.

More often than not, yes its usually aim point, parallax or nerves.

 

[GLTaylor]

Mikecr
This thread just showed up on my phone? Guess the internet ghosts knew I'd like it? Dunno......

 

[Korhil78]

Mikecr
This thread just showed up on my phone? Guess the internet ghosts knew I'd like it? Dunno......

Well thanks to you, it is showing up on all of our phones now!

 

[chav0_12]

Here we go again another year and a half later, sorry. I just want to say how grateful I am that I got to read it all, and I did read it all. I was really hoping some of the guys that were posting in the other thread that I was reading from 2014 would've chimed in and sent their rifles or themselves to Bryan for testing after being so adamant that this was a thing. I was really hoping for a full confirmed theory/myth busted or theory/myth confirmed and what we can do to alleviate it. Oh well, it was a good solid read anyway.