not accurate at 100 but accurate at 200

[dragman]

Alot of people smarter than me think the bullet can go to sleep and be more accurate at longer ranges than shorter ranges. One distinction that some folks miss is that being more accurate does not mean smaller groups. In the example a few posts back, the guy was shooting 5/8 MOA at 100 but .43 MOA at 400. It's not like the bullets corrected their course, the group at 400 is still bigger than the group at 100.

I've never seen someone claim a 1 inch gun at 100 was a half in gun at 200. That would take some kind of outside force that I don't believe exists.

Yes this is what I was getting at.
a 1/2" gun @ 100 doesn't magically shoot sub 1/2" @200 it might not get any bigger due to stabilization and bore yaw, but it doesn't ever get tighter.

 

[Bullet bumper]

Yes this is what I was getting at.
a 1/2" gun @ 100 doesn't magically shoot sub 1/2" @200 it might not get any bigger due to stabilization and bore yaw, but it doesn't ever get tighter.

You are not thinking correctly a 1/2" gun @100 is potentially a 1" inch gun @200 by the pure extension of the approx. 1/2 MOA and it is possible for that 1 " potential to get smaller and for example the gun shoot .75 " @ 200 instead of 1 " or possibly do it at a longer range .
That is what they mean when they say it shoots tighter .

 

[stephenthesuave]

You are not thinking correctly a 1/2" gun @100 is potentially a 1" inch gun @200 by the pure extension of the approx. 1/2 MOA and it is possible for that 1 " potential to get smaller and for example the gun shoot .75 " @ 200 instead of 1 " or possibly do it at a longer range .
That is what they mean when they say it shoots tighter .

This is where the semantics of it all can trip people up. I wouldn't call a .75 group at 200 tighter than a .5 group at 100. It would be assigned a smaller MOA figure, though.

We are on the same page as to what is actually happening, but we are using different words to describe it.

 

[dragman]

This is where the semantics of it all can trip people up. I wouldn't call a .75 group at 200 tighter than a .5 group at 100. It would be assigned a smaller MOA figure, though.

We are on the same page as to what is actually happening, but we are using different words to describe it.

CORRECT!
either use inches or MOA once you start mixing them in your examples it becomes convoluted

 

[gohring3006]

After my gun shot 1in at 100 and shot 2in average at 400 with 200gr.smks I never decide on a load tested at 100 anymore people blame paralax, bullet going to stabilizing (which is what I believe) either way no matter what it is I don't trust 100 yard groups....

 

[Broz]

I agree use moa and stick with it. But one needs to look at what the moa is in inches to see what happens so often, to me and others, is that the groups do not measure smaller (in inches) , yet are indeed less moa with greater distances.

I promise you I adjust out the paralax completely when shooting, always. I am mostly using large bullet like 7mm 180's, 230's in 30 cal and 300's in the 338's. But with no doubt I see this very often.

A consistently shooting load at just under 1 moa at 100 yards, will be just under .5 moa at 200 and 300 and at 1000.

Beleave it, or not, distute it or deny it. All I can tell you it happens and happens quite a bit. Pretty regularly actually. And I burn my fair share of powder at distance I feel. This is far from a fluke or screw up on my part.

FWIW
Jeff

 

[gohring3006]

I agree use moa and stick with it. But one needs to look at what the moa is in inches to see what happens so often, to me and others, is that the groups do not measure smaller (in inches) , yet are indeed less moa with greater distances.

I promise you I adjust out the paralax completely when shooting, always. I am mostly using large bullet like 7mm 180's, 230's in 30 cal and 300's in the 338's. But with no doubt I see this very often.

A consistently shooting load at just under 1 moa at 100 yards, will be just under .5 moa at 200 and 300 and at 1000.

Beleave it, or not, distute it or deny it. All I can tell you it happens and happens quite a bit. Pretty regularly actually. And I burn my fair share of powder at distance I feel. This is far from a fluke or screw up on my part.

FWIW
Jeff

I totally agree, I adjust paralax and shoot multiple groups to get an average its the same result every time I also agree the about groups are not smaller in inches just less moa.

 

[davkrat]

After my gun shot 1in at 100 and shot 2in average at 400 with 200gr.smks I never decide on a load tested at 100 anymore people blame paralax, bullet going to stabilizing (which is what I believe) either way no matter what it is I don't trust 100 yard groups....

Exactly. I have not shot 100 groups outside of initial load development/getting on paper in quite a while. The groups at 400 and further are what matter to me anyways. Being able to hit a 2 MOA target at 100 yards means a hell of a lot less to me than being able to hit a 12" 2 MOA target at 600. Like others I have had crappy groups at 100 yards shoot basically the same spread at 3-4 times that distance that I found perfectly acceptable. I don't care what the cause is I just care whether or not I can slip one behind the shoulder at those further ranges.

A never cleaned .30-30 lever gun shooting softball sized groups has accounted for more big game than all our fancy long range rigs combined.

 

[elkaholic]

I did not read the entire thread so this may have already been said? I look at it as an arrow leaving a bow string. Any of you done this know what I am saying. Until a bow is tuned, and even to some degree after it is, the arrow will wobble in flight, until it settles in, causing the group at 5 yards to potentially be greater than at 20. I think that this is a possible explanation of the op's question.....rich