Better Groups At Distance

[eoperator]

Somewhere within the hornady podcast, balistic series Jayden gave his take on this subject.

 

[Mikecr]

If physics isn't the measure what should we use?

To many folks I respect have stated that they have seen the phenomena to discount it as a will-o-wisp, mirage or delusion. But, because it must be IMO either optical in nature, or have to do with the shooter got me thinking.

My contention is that the term 'physics', as thrown around in absolutes, is too broad.
Optics is a branch of physics, yet it's removed from consideration here via shoot-through testing.
So if the answer is optical, then this hasn't been measured right.

 

[Maol]

Agreed. If it is optical or the shooter's focus, those experiments haven't been conducted yet. The shoot through experiments only rule out ballistics.

 

[chav0_12]

Agreed. If it is optical or the shooter's focus, those experiments haven't been conducted yet. The shoot through experiments only rule out ballistics.

If I'm not mistaken, Litz did his test and had aiming points at both 100 and 300, and switched back and forth. Yet there was no difference in group correlation.

 

[Mike Matteson]

We now have e-targets that can replace the closer paper target on the shoot-through target so there can be no excuse like the closer paper upset the bullet before it got to distance.

A close e-target will just be the microphones on the open frame with no paper and the shooter can just aim at the distant target. This can eliminate all those excuses about distant aim being different or better than close aim too.

Interesting!

 

[David_h]

This thread makes me think of those devices to shoot bullets around corners.

 

[Maol]

If I'm not mistaken, Litz did his test and had aiming points at both 100 and 300, and switched back and forth. Yet there was no difference in group correlation.

That would seem to rule out Optical and Shooter. I know I have heard of folks that it has happened to, I have yet to hear of anyone reproducing the phenomena in tests. One offs don't count either, it needs to be repeatable. I am not even sure how you do it with only one rifle, one scope and one shooter.

 

[Mikecr]

I would just like to know if the mystery is prevalent with shooters using prescription glasses.

 

[chav0_12]

That would seem to rule out Optical and Shooter. I know I have heard of folks that it has happened to, I have yet to hear of anyone reproducing the phenomena in tests. One offs don't count either, it needs to be repeatable. I am not even sure how you do it with only one rifle, one scope and one shooter.

That's the thing though. Litz has tested a bunch of rifles, even ones that claimed to have groups that shrunk, and it never happened.

 

[Mike Matteson]

That's the thing though. Litz has tested a bunch of rifles, even ones that claimed to have groups that shrunk, and it never happened.

I'll go along with that. Maybe they were looking out of the wrong eye.