Better Groups At Distance

[Mikecr]

The theoretical 'smart' bullet approach to debunking this, is itself bogus.
I never heard of anybody claiming bullets hitting at 100 could continue to a better result at 500.
What I HAVE seen in question, is people shooting better at distance -vs- close.
So IMO, the $1,00 shoot through challenge is silly and lacking intent to address the mystery, much less discover any truth.

I generally shoot better accuracy in moa, with distance, and I don't know why.
For instance, I shoot so-so at 100, terrible at 200, better than either 300 and out, to some limit range.
I suspect that it's MY optical situation. My astigmatism, glasses, similar scope/power, and parallax, in summation.

There is also an attribute to this that seems unspecified/sloppy: are we talking about accuracy or precision?
Two completely different things

 

[PBramble]

^^^this right here. It agrees with what I've already said. It's always the shooter, not the gun, not the projectile. Always the shooter. Although, you should be able to differentiate between accuracy and precision given the whole premise is group size.

 

[milo-2]

What he's saying is that you could shoot a group that falls into the statistical range of a rifles grouping ability that is smaller at 600 than one that was just shot, that also falls into that range, at 100.

So like a real true average 1/2" rifle's statistical range is like 3/4" to 1/4". Possibly higher. So, if you shoot a 3/4" group at 100 then shoot the 1/4" group at 600, they're within the average group size that is to be expected.

I understood fully what he said and it made sense, I get an anomaly, but at 600, way more outside interferences to actually make group size larger, not all the rifle and load.
One more time, comparing 30 shots at 100 to 30 shots at 600 is not fair, even if cherry picking conditions.

 

[QuietTexan]

rational reason that bullets wouldn't maintain a constant angular deviation between POA and POI as they travel down range.

My part of this argument the last time is happened is that there is NOT a constant rate of change. But it only gets larger, never smaller. So the exact opposite of what you're talking about.

Increase in group size is not linear on a long enough test. It appears constant because inside a short range envelope the variations are so small as to be undetectable inside of other variable changes, but there comes a point through transonic and subsonic transitions the group size begins to deviate drastically. Admittedly this doesn't come into play for many rifles and many distances (arguably the majority of both that guys actually shoot), but it's a very critical issue in ELR. There comes a point where you need to stop messing with the load and focus on the shooting, and it comes a lot sooner than people think.

If you can get a 10-shot 1" group with ES under about 40FPS, stop tinkering and start shooting! Roll that load out as far as it goes until it falls apart, or more likely until you run out of targets to shoot at.


To get back on topic though, if someone manages to shoot an absolutely smaller (meaning measured ES and not angular ES) group at a meaningfully further distance than it's most likely a mechanical issue. Scope parallax, mirage, or too much zoom close in.

The trick is if they did a shoot-through test like Bryan offers for the test, the further out group would be worse because the mistakes on the short range target would amplify. So basically there's nothing about the load that makes the bullet do what it's doing, it's all shooter.

 

[milo-2]

There is also an attribute to this that seems unspecified/sloppy: are we talking about accuracy or precision?
Two completely different things

Aren't you a BR shooter? If by no intention of your own, at 1K, if you have 3 bullets touching bordering the 10ring edge, you going for the X your last shots?
These arguments are getting to be lame.

 

[RegionRat]

The group sample size stat point is in fact not part of the challenge because it is eliminated by the format where it is measured at two or more distances In the same flight. It is now possible to also eliminate the "I aim better at distance" arguments since the test can be set up with just the far target if you like.

So, either take the $1000 and have your say based on the evidence, or… may we have the physical explaination of how any single shot at an aim point will somehow steer itself closer or back to the aim point farther down range than it is when closer?

 

[Mikecr]

Aren't you a BR shooter? If by no intention of your own, at 1K, if you have 3 bullets touching bordering the 10ring edge, you going for the X your last shots?

No, I'm a hunter.
I would assign zero points for precision ('3 bullets touching') outside of my killzone.

Accuracy is defined with any/each shot, purely w/resp to center of mark.
This is what I care about.

If I'm to put a shot in a 1/2" dot/100, or 1" dot/200, or 3" dot/600, my best results with good conditions seem 600 dots.
This is of course NOT because my bullets choose this. I'm sure of that.
The actual cause remains a mystery to me.

 

[QuietTexan]

I would assign zero points for precision ('3 bullets touching') outside of my killzone.

100% agree.

If the killzone is 1MOA it doesn't matter if a load is kind of precise (1MOA) really precise (.5MOA) or super duper precise (.25MOA), if it's accurate enough to hit the 1MOA zone each one will work.

Long story short there's a point at which there's no more reward for precision (sub-size of kill zone) and accuracy (placement into killzone) becomes the sole priority.

 

[Mikecr]

There is a point where all the precision in the world isn't accurate enough.

 

[jensenj71]

My point was that shots originating from a single point have a slightly different angular paths to the target and POI varies from POA. The only way I can explain an apparent change in angle is if there is another displacement occurring that does not produce a constant angle deviation. The bullet leaves the barrel with a primary vector that has some angular deviation due to static or dynamic barrel movement. If something else causes a secondary displacement aka a jump or slide then the POI is a result of the sum of the primary and secondary vectors. If the secondary displacement was only temporary the groups could appear to tighten up because the secondary displacement would stabilize. The influence of the secondary displacement on the POI would decrease in terms of MOA because the influence is fixed once the bullet stabilizes.

Tuning a bow to get arrows to launch straight improves the group. When the arrows launch a little wonky they drive off the path until they stabilize. Once they stabilize they all follow a somewhat colinear path to target. Obviously, bullets dont have vanes and bullets are spun for stability. It just helps me picture a bullet getting launched slightly wonky and driving off path until it stabilizes.

I am not saying this exists with bullets, but it seems to be an unproven theory to explain an apparent decrease in MOA group size. The path we think the bullet took from muzzle to POI is just the sum of the vectors at time of impact. The actual path depends on the vectors at various points in time along the path. We think the bullet arrived at the target along the resultant vector, but what if the bullet took a different path and arrived at the same point. The down range depends on how the bullet approached the target and the forces that act on the bullet after it passes through the POI.

It would only be observable when the variation in POI was primarily being driven by the secondary displacement rather than the angular variation in the primary displacement. It would also only be observable when other factors are minimized or consistently impacting POI.

Again, not saying this happens, just trying to form a theory that could explain the observations that seem to contradict my logic. How an individual shoots at distance and statistical variation in group size could also explain the observations. A pair of electronic targets seems like a good setup, however a gun, load and shooter that appears to exhibit this behavior would also be needed.

This has nothing to do with hunting and I am not taking a side in the debate. I honestly don't know the answer. I do know from experience that my inability to understand some things has been a dirrect result of assumptions that I thought were correct!

 

[Mikecr]

You're theorizing about something different than murmured about.
The shoot through testing always shows angular paths which open POI with distance.
With proposed path side-stepping a bullet would hit a near target with offset, and have no ability to counter back to OUR desire.
The best it could do is hold it's moa (not getting worse) -with an offset.

But I don't even think that offsetting can happen as discreet.
There is a lot of forward inertia that would put a resulting offset on an angle to get there.
While the rate of this change as described isn't constant, there is nothing to actually counter it, and get back to parallel with POA.
Every error ends up angular..

 

[chav0_12]

There aren't any guns/shooters that can actually produce those results. This has been attempted.

 

[PBramble]

My point was that shots originating from a single point have a slightly different angular paths to the target and POI varies from POA. The only way I can explain an apparent change in angle is if there is another displacement occurring that does not produce a constant angle deviation. The bullet leaves the barrel with a primary vector that has some angular deviation due to static or dynamic barrel movement. If something else causes a secondary displacement aka a jump or slide then the POI is a result of the sum of the primary and secondary vectors. If the secondary displacement was only temporary the groups could appear to tighten up because the secondary displacement would stabilize. The influence of the secondary displacement on the POI would decrease in terms of MOA because the influence is fixed once the bullet stabilizes.

Tuning a bow to get arrows to launch straight improves the group. When the arrows launch a little wonky they drive off the path until they stabilize. Once they stabilize they all follow a somewhat colinear path to target. Obviously, bullets dont have vanes and bullets are spun for stability. It just helps me picture a bullet getting launched slightly wonky and driving off path until it stabilizes.

I am not saying this exists with bullets, but it seems to be an unproven theory to explain an apparent decrease in MOA group size. The path we think the bullet took from muzzle to POI is just the sum of the vectors at time of impact. The actual path depends on the vectors at various points in time along the path. We think the bullet arrived at the target along the resultant vector, but what if the bullet took a different path and arrived at the same point. The down range depends on how the bullet approached the target and the forces that act on the bullet after it passes through the POI.

It would only be observable when the variation in POI was primarily being driven by the secondary displacement rather than the angular variation in the primary displacement. It would also only be observable when other factors are minimized or consistently impacting POI.

Again, not saying this happens, just trying to form a theory that could explain the observations that seem to contradict my logic. How an individual shoots at distance and statistical variation in group size could also explain the observations. A pair of electronic targets seems like a good setup, however a gun, load and shooter that appears to exhibit this behavior would also be needed.

This has nothing to do with hunting and I am not taking a side in the debate. I honestly don't know the answer. I do know from experience that my inability to understand some things has been a dirrect result of assumptions that I thought were correct!

then do the shoot through test. That'll prove your theory.

 

[tankgijohn72]

My point was that shots originating from a single point have a slightly different angular paths to the target and POI varies from POA. The only way I can explain an apparent change in angle is if there is another displacement occurring that does not produce a constant angle deviation. The bullet leaves the barrel with a primary vector that has some angular deviation due to static or dynamic barrel movement. If something else causes a secondary displacement aka a jump or slide then the POI is a result of the sum of the primary and secondary vectors. If the secondary displacement was only temporary the groups could appear to tighten up because the secondary displacement would stabilize. The influence of the secondary displacement on the POI would decrease in terms of MOA because the influence is fixed once the bullet stabilizes.

Tuning a bow to get arrows to launch straight improves the group. When the arrows launch a little wonky they drive off the path until they stabilize. Once they stabilize they all follow a somewhat colinear path to target. Obviously, bullets dont have vanes and bullets are spun for stability. It just helps me picture a bullet getting launched slightly wonky and driving off path until it stabilizes.

I am not saying this exists with bullets, but it seems to be an unproven theory to explain an apparent decrease in MOA group size. The path we think the bullet took from muzzle to POI is just the sum of the vectors at time of impact. The actual path depends on the vectors at various points in time along the path. We think the bullet arrived at the target along the resultant vector, but what if the bullet took a different path and arrived at the same point. The down range depends on how the bullet approached the target and the forces that act on the bullet after it passes through the POI.

It would only be observable when the variation in POI was primarily being driven by the secondary displacement rather than the angular variation in the primary displacement. It would also only be observable when other factors are minimized or consistently impacting POI.

Again, not saying this happens, just trying to form a theory that could explain the observations that seem to contradict my logic. How an individual shoots at distance and statistical variation in group size could also explain the observations. A pair of electronic targets seems like a good setup, however a gun, load and shooter that appears to exhibit this behavior would also be needed.

This has nothing to do with hunting and I am not taking a side in the debate. I honestly don't know the answer. I do know from experience that my inability to understand some things has been a dirrect result of assumptions that I thought were correct!

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.