Yeah, that was probably the difference.3 shots is a pretty small sampling. If your Garman was set up a little different,it could account for that much difference.
Yeah, that was probably the difference.3 shots is a pretty small sampling. If your Garman was set up a little different,it could account for that much difference.
Was that a compressed load?I ran 2945-2950 with N568 at 80grs, fed 215 and ADG brass, 200gr accubond but with a 25.5"
Gun has a long throat.
All I heard was how slow it was… not what I found but it was stable and consistent.
There was an interesting article in the New Shooting Times on the Garmen Zero.Yeah, that was probably the difference.
Not trying to derail but I thought that garmin thing was the greatest thing since the invention of gunpowder?3 shots is a pretty small sampling. If your Garman was set up a little different,it could account for that much difference.
was the brass the same or on a second loading/different loading cycle? All thing being equal/temp/fouling/charge/seating/neck tension, maybe brass is just fire formed to the chamber?Averaged 25fps less today
The xero is pretty grear,but like the labradar it uses dopplar radar to measure velocity. So when set up ,unless mounted to the object firing the projectile, the projectile is moving away from the xero at an angle. If that angle changes it will affect the reading.Not trying to derail but I thought that garmin thing was the greatest thing since the invention of gunpowder?
OP this would make me scratch my head too. This seems like my kinda load development luck haha. I'm interested in your results. As of now I have a 22" 300wm that is doing 50-75fps faster than the your findings but with H1k.
Dangit, I got excited hoping that was your new .308 caliber Carbon Six!
All the same.was the brass the same or on a second loading/different loading cycle? All thing being equal/temp/fouling/charge/seating/neck tension, maybe brass is just fire formed to the chamber?
I didn't get a picture of the group, it was at 200 yards and about 1.25 inches the first group pictured measured .475 so the group at 200 was slightly larger could have been me. My 60 year old eyes aren't as good as they once was.