• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Better Groups At Distance

I don't know about impossible.. Devil's advocate:
With a compensating barrel tune/tuner we can improve grouping while suffering higher than desired ES.
This sets the tune in favor of one range.
There are folks load developing/tuning at 1kyds to do this -for 1kyd BR.

Not sure how this compensation could then affect a shoot through at 500yds.
In my mind it would seem like a faster 1kyd compensated shot would be lower at 500 (by too much), and a slower compensated shot would be higher at 500 (by too much). Potentially leading to better moa precision at 1kyd -vs- 500yds, -with a high ES compensated tune.
 
Mikecr said:
I don't know about impossible.. Devil's advocate:
With a compensating barrel tune/tuner we can improve grouping while suffering higher than desired ES.
This sets the tune in favor of one range.
There are folks load developing/tuning at 1kyds to do this -for 1kyd BR.

Not sure how this compensation could then affect a shoot through at 500yds.
In my mind it would seem like a faster 1kyd compensated shot would be lower at 500 (by too much), and a slower compensated shot would be higher at 500 (by too much). Potentially leading to better moa precision at 1kyd -vs- 500yds, -with a high ES compensated tune.
Click to expand...
Again, it's physics. And a whole lot of math. Any variations at distance from the original group are environmental. And those variations are as good on one side as they are bad on the other. The group stays the same, it just shifts position.
 
Maybe I can express it like this, with no outside interference (windage or shooter) it is impossible to make a 600 or 300 yard group better than it could have shot at 100. Hence the need for mil or mrad scopes. Shots are linear to a degree. Anyone who says different feel free to do the shoot through and collect the 1k. But I stand by the fact that the shooter is the biggest influence in all of this at 100 vs 300 or 600
 
Ballistics encompasses many categories of physics, and more than bullets falling 32ft/sec^2 in some direction.
Imagine if you will, a bullet released at 2900fps while the muzzle is pointing high.
The next bullet is released at 2950 with the muzzle pointed lower.
In vertical plane there could be a distance [X] where these different paths converge.

As the higher launch angle bullet reaches [X] distance slower (due to lower MV), it falls further, compensating for higher launch.
As the lower launch angle bullet reaches [X] distance faster (due to higher MV), if falls less, compensating for lower launch.
If you can attain this barrel tune, your [X] distance vertical variance should be low.
Possibly lower (in moa) than any other distances -if the testing load exhibited high ES.

Throw a yard dart faster, but low trajectory.
Throw another slower but higher trajectory.
With a little practice you could get them to stick in the ground at the same distance.
Consider how far apart there paths are until reaching that converged distance.
Seems possible, for vertical, a part of precision.
 
If your reloading for precision a Chrono is your friend. Do your due diligence to dial in your load to have the lowest S/D and E/S without losing accuracy/ groups opening up. If your shooting 1/4-1/2 moa groups @100 and have the available range you need to stretch it out to maximum range you think your going to apply it or minimum 90% and true your ballistic data. Dope. Use Strelok , Hornady or applied ballistics app or print it off your computer. It will tell you what your drop is for that given distance and you can make correction on app or make a dope card for rifle and that load. It's not hard and will pay off.
 
PBramble said:
Maybe I can express it like this, with no outside interference (windage or shooter) it is impossible to make a 600 or 300 yard group better than it could have shot at 100. Hence the need for mil or mrad scopes. Shots are linear to a degree. Anyone who says different feel free to do the shoot through and collect the 1k. But I stand by the fact that the shooter is the biggest influence in all of this at 100 vs 300 or 600
Click to expand...
This is why we true or data and verify dope
 
I like the arrow analogy. It gives a visual. But again, when tuning, the poi changes and this would show at distance. And wouldn't explain the group shrinkage at distance considering at the closer distance the two outside shots opposite one another would represent the greatest angular extremes in the set and likely could not converge at a further distance.

It also appears that the distances are always 100 and something else with no other distance data points to show the progression. If it's 2 inches at 100 and .5 moa at 600, it should be easy enough to witness the progression whether improving or not.
 
I spent my whole career in science and actually made some amatuer improvements to modern ballistics by discussion on this forum. I really like this guy's closing remark because if you don't have at least a small open door in your mind that you could be wrong, you're not going to learn anything new.


" 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 like the $1,000 challenge because it represents a open mind being willing to accept that there are still new things to learn about the science of ballistics. I personally think the money is safe, but time will tell.
 
I have at least 2 guns that I get about the same size groups at 100 as I do at 300 yards. Which makes the 300 yard groups 1/3 the size as the 100 yard groups.

Like I stated earlier I attribute it to more concentration at 300 due to distance.
 
600yd with 20x magnification or 100yd with 3x magnification probably get same result eh?
 
Tiny Tim said:
I like the arrow analogy. It gives a visual. But again, when tuning, the poi changes and this would show at distance. And wouldn't explain the group shrinkage at distance considering at the closer distance the two outside shots opposite one another would represent the greatest angular extremes in the set and likely could not converge at a further distance.

It also appears that the distances are always 100 and something else with no other distance data points to show the progression. If it's 2 inches at 100 and .5 moa at 600, it should be easy enough to witness the progression whether improving or not.
Click to expand...
The arrow definitely doesn't seem to follow the line of sight or a straight line. The arrow comes out of the bow moving in the direction of the target at a slight angle. The angle steers the arrow off of the main path until it straightens out and then the main direction carries the arrow to target. It seems like I can see it isn't a straight line. Getting the arrow out of the bow straight definitely reduces group size on the target. The arrow is only tilted for say 10yds before the vanes pull it straight. I tune my bow to shoot a bare shaft arrow reasonably well at 25yds because it magnifies the impact at the target and allows me to tweak the tuning. I don't need to tune further out because the impact is all in at say 10yds and backing up further just adds other factors that I am not trying to tune. Once get the arrow launching straight I can add a broadhead and shoot an arrow with vanes from as far away as 90yds on a good day without any wind.

Is there any basis for thinking a bullet could do something similar. Launch tilted and slide until it stabilizes? If launched tilted would it slide because of aero jump where the bullet is tilted relative to the air vector? Tilted in the bore seems like a random effect because it would be tilted and spinning or wobbling. Tilted as it exits the bore could be spinning on a tilted axis. If the tilt was somewhat consistent the impact at the target could be regular and limited to a fixed displacement that does not vary with distance. Let's say the tilt alone creates a 0.5in variation in POI at 100yds but it does not persist beyond 100yds because the bullet stabilized. Then lets say the variation in angle launched created another 0.5in variation in POI at 100yds but it persists beyond 100yds. The measured group might be as large as 1in or 1MOA. At 200yds the tilt still only caused 0.5in or 0.25MOA. The angle launched is still 0.5MOA so perhaps we see a 0.75MOA group. At 400yds we are down to 0.625MOA assuming other factors don't start to creep in. The shrinking in group size would only appear in certain conditions.

Again, all just a giant what if! Good chance it is all just ******** because nobody has proven it in a shoot through situation. I just keep thinking about it in the context of my bow.
 

Similar threads

6
group variation at distance
Replies
1
Views
790
Rich Coyle
R
R
260 Rem with 243 cases better groups?
Replies
4
Views
2K
djtjr
D
G
Accuracy problem at distance?
Replies
6
Views
1K
BallisticsGuy
B
Barrelnut
Federal 210M are at Cabelas - things getting better?
Replies
5
Views
2K
fmajor
F
A
Distance to lands
Replies
13
Views
2K
243winxb
243winxb

Recent Posts

Top