How do you lower S.D.?

[KQguy]

Update,
I got my new savage 110 fp (300 wm)the other day,and decided to break in the barrel yesterday.After about 10 rds.(shoot-clean ,shoot-clean),I took 8 rds I had laying around from my old Browning load(110 gr.Vmax w/65gr. Varget)and shot them for a group just to get an idea how the gun would shoot.I put all 8 shots in 1 1/2.I know for alot of people this is nothing to brag about,but for me this shows great promise.I did not have a good platform to shoot off,I was just kneeling over a wobbly table shooting off my bipod and a sand bag in the rear.I havn't started load developement for this gun yet,so things will only get better from here.I am excited now,because the best group I ever got out of the Browning was 1 1/4" for 5 shots,and that was after lots of load developement.I am curious to see the difference in SD between the 2 rifles,I am sure the savage will show much better #'s.
KQguy

 

[Weda]

Only if the observer is blind. So far, ALL the evidence of the topic has been from the supportive side. NONE has come from you. I challenge you to show me any data at all done by reputable sources disclaiming bullet yaw, precession, or nutation dampening. Lets see it.

I'm not challenging anything I simply am attempting to gether information from both sides.



Really? I couldn't tell. You have no supportive information so did you forget what you read?


No I remember what I've read. That in know means I must believe it. It simply means i've read it.

So, what your saying is you won't believe anything unless it's your own theory. It won't really matter who tries to help you or who's research is printed. You have a very interesting way of learning my friend.

Nope. I havn't said that at all. I prefer to collect the data that supports the theories I have gathered information on. Then give it a whirl for myself.





Well, you're almost 1/4 the way to how many I shoot. But numbers don't mean anything unless you are paying attention to the results of the experiments anyway. Going out and pumping 1000 rounds down a 45 acp in an afternoon at pop cans isn't going to teach you much about ballistics.

Wow, no doubt your single or have an understanding partner.
Very assuming arn't we. If you want to count handgun rounds add another 1500 to my total.

You think I know very little about ballistics? Simply because I havn't bought your postings on this matter?


You mean unlucky. Or maybe just haven't had the right equipment to see it.
I was out last week shooting a factory gun that shot .987" group at 100 for 3 shots. Then I went straight from the 100 yard board out to a gong at 650 yards and stacked 5 shots into a 4.25" group. The 5 wind flags I had set out never wiggled during the entire shoot. Three people witnessed it and one of them was in the "ain't gonna believe it till I see it" crowd. Well, now he knows it.

You're super.... Can I find your name on any national competition boards? Do you compete at all?


Actually, since you have been the only one posting back on this for 4 pages, I would say that you seem to be the only one who can't agree and can't accept fact.

Now who can't read? Numerous others have posted as well.

Let's go back and look who has given you the same story as myself. Buffalobob, DaveWilson, UB, Boss Hoss, etc. Text quoted were Sierra and Rinker. Pretty reliable sources. It's gonna be hard finding anyone more reliable me thinks.


Yeah, I know a few of these people. I've never said they were wrong.

I see you have run some searches on me. Good job. I'm glad I provided volumes of personal experiences that you can ignore at any time just like you did on this thread. Btw, I'm not as young as I look but coming from an old scruff, I take this as a compliment.

Yeah, I know who you are. I don't need to run searches, nor have I. Maybe you'd like to back up a few hundred yards and take another shot at me? I don't think I'm in too much danger, just my legs. I hope you've learned since then.

You're very assuming. I'm only on a fact finding mission here. I see you've taken things a bit personal.

FYI I'm not that old. Again, you assume.

 

[goodgrouper]

Weda,
You are a class act. You have no idea what you are making yourself look like.
And you're not going to lure me into stepping down to your level. As far as I'm concerned, you are somewhere between Hillary's belly button lint and Rosie O'donnells toe fungus. You were a troller and anti-long range hunter then just as much as you are now.

ANd I just noticed this post by you:

.
Since I have the opportunity, these days I thought I might try 1K br. Who know it might happen this year.

.QUOTE]


All along, you weren't even worth talking to. Hillary would have a better chance at running a debate of ethics than you do with ballistics. Have a great day.

 

[Pdvdh]

Wasn't all for naught

GG,

Thanks for the informative posts and taking the time to share some of those quoted references. I myself have always wondered how people could write about their rifles shooting tighter groups at longer distances than at closer ranges. But now I understand that they were probably refering to a lesser MOA at longer ranges than absolute group measurements, and that would be plausible. I have to admit I haven't seen it yet myself, but I haven't shot a lot of different rifles and loads out past 600 yards yet. There aren't any long range gun ranges around here. And the majority of the land is National Wildlife Refuge where target shooting is prohibited and Federal Law Enforcement officers will issue citations.

Weda,

I was waiting for you or someone else to post some legitimate references countering GG's information, but there hasn't been any, other than people stating that they don't think it's possible due to the laws of physics (randomness theories). So I haven't seen it yet either but now that I understand the claim to be lower MOA rather than smaller measured group size, I no longer have a mental block accepting what is being said. If you've got some factual evidence to the contrary, I'd like to read it and you should post it. Otherwise I don't see where you have a reason to disagree with the evidence that's been posted - which describes bullet yaw, and how it can cause higher MOAs at short range and - low and behold - after the bullet yaw has deminished, lesser MOAs at long range. Sierra isn't going to author faulty information that would harm their reputation, and then not later correct that information.

 

[Weda]

phorwath,

I'm not dissagreeing with the kid. But you've got some pretty stong opinions on boths sides. THat's my point. I've tripped enough triggers to be pretty confident in my abilities. I just havn't been fortunate or unfortuntate according to GG., in laying eyes on this particular ballistics happening. Tis all.

You are a class act. You have no idea what you are making yourself look like.

Hehe, do you really think my world revolves around what 10,000 (well maybe a few less because I know quite a few people on here.) think I "look like"
You seems more worried about your image than I am about mine.

You were a troller and anti-long range hunter then just as much as you are now.

This is f'ing beautiful. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up around it long before your were an itch in your daddy's pants.
You definitly should look before your leap.

ince I have the opportunity, these days I thought I might try 1K br. Who know it might happen this year.

Again, read what I said, I might try 1000 yard bench rest competition. I never said I havn't shot 1000 yards. Matter of fact my longest kill is over 1500 yards witness by Jerry Rice. Do you know who he is? And not the football star. I've killed deer sized game beyond 500 yards in high wind with one shot. I never had to back up to prove a point.

You are wrong about me. I am one of the biggest advocates of this sport. Look both ways before you rcross the road.

I'm done with your comments.
I was simple saying, if you go back and look. I thought I knew my stance on this subject. Now I am not so sure.
To be honest I am leaning towards your side of the fence. I just need to dig up a bit more on it.

Easy kid.

 

[goodgrouper]

Inexperienced Old gummer (you know who you are),
I re-emphasize my previous post. And further add UB's quote. He hit the nail on the head exactly.

speaking of not making any sense is weda's posts it does not even warrant a reply

Phorwath,
Thank you very much for your post. It is greatly appreciated and was well timed. I was just beginning to think all the decent folks weren't going to speak up and all we had left here were dumbfounded dip$hit$ who just like to troll sites where they don't belong. But the majority of people still make this the best place to try and learn. Thanks again.

 

[Steve Shelp]

GG,
Your last statements are more than fair. Truth be known given the winds you deal with, I would probably be doing the same thing to tune rifles given the circumstances of your geographical location. Very good point that should be considered by anyone when tuning a rifle.
I've shot competitions in Colorado, S. Dakota, and Iowa and have shot in Kansas for PDs & coyotes. Yes there is always winds blowing anytime I've been out there.


Steve

 

[Weda]

GG,

Inexperienced? Really.
Because I don't agree and fawn over your statements?
What makes you think I am so old?
Your a pretty angry guy for laying a foundation of how you just like to help people.

I'm not that far from you. Maybe we could get together and shoot. You'd be suprized how much I don't know or belong doing this. ;-)

 

[goodgrouper]

I'm done with your comments.
.

I knew that wasn't going to last. Proof of lack of character and integrity is abundant in wedaworld.

 

[goodgrouper]

I've shot competitions in Colorado, S. Dakota, and Iowa and have shot in Kansas for PDs & coyotes. Yes there is always winds blowing anytime I've been out there.


Steve

Steve,
Have you ever shot the Firewalker or the Gateway in Colorado?

 

[Freebore]

KQguy,
I just picked up a Interarms Mark-X in a 300 Win. that was part of a guys collection that was being sold at a local shop. It was in pretty sad shape stock wise but the metal was OK. It's a HUNTING RIFLE.

After refinishing the stock I took it to the range with the load that work in my Mod 70 300. It was all over the place...RL-22 w/180's. I was given a load by a guy, said he has used it for years and it shot in mostly every 300 he tried it in. 72 grains of IMR-4350 CCI-BR-2 w/190's. Tried the load with 180GK and 190MK. The 180's shot the best group yet 1 1/2". I'm since using 'tuning the load' without my chronograpgh by adjusting the load up as I have no pressure signs yet, this load is only in the older books.

I sure the Savage will work well for you as one one of those too and it's a shooter. Didn't know of Browning that didn't shoot until now though.

 

[Reloader]

Bullets don't have brains...

Goodgrouper,

Do you have any knowledge of Physics? Just curious...

No one is disagreeing that bullets can leave a bbl unstabilized, any common knowledge of George Greenhill's work and range experience teachs us this.

While projectiles may stabilize over a period, the unstabilization takes them from their initial path, thus they are not going to alter their path after stabilization occurs. A 1.5MOA group at 100 yards is not going to become a .5 MOA group at 500. Like someone else has stated, show proof and not just one incident where the shooter got lucky, I'm talking a rifle that consistently groups large at close range and very tight at longer ranges in the same conditions. It doesn't work that way.

I need a few of these bullets with brains

Have a Good One,

Reloader

 

[goodgrouper]

Do you have any knowledge of Physics? Just curious...

Nope. Obviously Dr Rinker and the Sierra techs don't either. We all just like to mislead the general public for the fun of it.

No one is disagreeing that bullets can leave a bbl unstabilized, any common knowledge of George Greenhill's work and range experience teachs us this...

Greenhill's work was primarily done to understand understabilized bullets and their characteristics. He also formulated an equation to determine proper twist rate. Have you any information at all on any of his work that states smaller MOA groups are not possible? If you do, I would love to see them!

While projectiles may stabilize over a period, the unstabilization takes them from their initial path, thus they are not going to alter their path after stabilization occurs. A 1.5MOA group at 100 yards is not going to become a .5 MOA group at 500 ...

Perhaps you should read the quote from Sierra that Buffalobob so kindly posted here. If you want to start a debate on this, maybe the first phone call you should make is a call to the Sierra tech line. As for me, I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times in my business so it is not hard for me to understand.

Like someone else has stated, show proof and not just one incident where the shooter got lucky, I'm talking a rifle that consistently groups large at close range and very tight at longer ranges in the same conditions.

Oh no no no. We have presented our information and stated our sources. IT IS NOW YOUR TURN TO PROVE IT WRONG. The burden of proof is in your hands now. And no one of your way of thinking has yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support your misunderstanding. I challenged weda a few pages ago to bring it to the table. He failed, now I'm challenging you. Good luck.

 

[eddybo]

To all that contributed with data, thanks for the info. I have tried to explain to a couple of shooting buddies why my 06AI will shoot better than 1/2 MOA at 800 yards but can only manage 1 MOA at 100, when I shoot 208 A maxs. They have witnessed it, they have fired the rifle and confirmed it, but still dont believe that a bullet can return to its intended path. I keep hearing that bullets dont have brains. It seems funny that some have not witnessed this. It is at least the 2nd time I have seen it and I do not have a wealth of experiance. My 7wsm does the same thing when I shoot 180 bergers.

I envy the wind problems you guys have. I would trade the calm winds here for an abundance of places to shoot long range any day.