Fed v Win brass accuracy difference with pics

[Bart B.]

Again, list the BR sanctioning's and the matches your basing your statements from.

Look some up yourself. You don't believe enough of what I post to make it worth my time. That way, you'll get information straight from the horse's mouth, or bull's, if you prefer. Not their other end you so often relate my comments to.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

What exactly are you describing with the 6x dispersion comment? A br match winners targets are hard to tell they have 6x dispersion anything except a small fraction. So its up to 6x of what? How do you plot dispersion of one hole groups?

 

[Bart B.]

What exactly are you describing with the 6x dispersion comment? A br match winners targets are hard to tell they have 6x dispersion anything except a small fraction. So its up to 6x of what? How do you plot dispersion of one hole groups?

I did not limit my remarks to winners only. I think some believe I did.
My remark "each competitors' groups easily have up to a 6X or more spread in size" means:

Those winning have the smallest spread from center-to-center of smallest group to that of their largest. Typically 2X to 3X, occasionally less than 2. Sometimes a lot more.

Those at the bottom of the leader board shooting the biggest groups will often have their biggest group 6X or more larger than their smallest one.

Up to a 6X or more spread in size" means somewhere from zero to over six.

The record 5-shot group at 100 yards is .0077 inch. Its holder has no other records to his credit. I've no idea how much bigger his largest group's were in that match.

 

[oldroper]

Which consecutive 5-shot group in this composite of fifty-four of them is the smallest and largest?
View attachment 1036969
If you ever look at the 5-shot group results of a benchrest match, each competitors' groups easily have up to a 6X or more spread in size.

Bart give up example??? and what BR matches you attend.

 

[Paddyd]

Not just different volumes. Probably just as big a variable would be the metallurgy between the two and how it affects neck tension. If one case has harder brass that doesn't expand quite as easily as another it may also have increased initial pressures and an entirely different pressure curve .

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

If you ever look at the 5-shot group results of a benchrest match, each competitors' groups easily have up to a 6X or more spread in size.

Nope. Calling BS on this (again), at least for top BR shooters. Check out the 2017 FISS results. For Jeff Summers, Wayne Campbell, and Tim Humphreys (1-2-3 in the 2-gun), the average group size spread for all yardage aggregates was 2.17-fold. The MAXIMUM spread for either of these 3 gentlemen was 2.86-fold (Wayne Campbell LV100). The TOTAL SPREAD between the smallest and largest groups for all 3 shooters put together (300 shots, 60 groups, 2 guns, 2 yardages) was 3.5-fold (0.112 smallest, 0.392 largest, measured in MOA).

There's no point in finding out how those at the bottom of the standings shoot. What counts is how the consistent winners shoot, and there's nowhere near a 6x spread in group size in their aggs.

Aggs are won by shooting consistent groups, not by shooting a mix of big groups and tiny groups.

You need to update your knowledge of competitive BR and stop making unsupported claims that are easily shown to be false.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

You may can win one gun class but you wont win an aggregate match with 4x spread much less 6x. At least since we used 222s and neck sized

 

[dmoran]

@Bart B.
Since you say "not the winners", here is 10th-place stats from the 2015 & 2016 IBS-600 Nationals.
40-shot aggregates from 8-targets to each class/shooter:

• 2015 LT ... 1.969 / 3.259 = 1.65 X
• 2015 HV ... 1.411 / 4.002 = 2.83 X
• 2016 LT ... 1.818 / 3.399 = 1.86 X
• 2016 HV ... 1.463 / 4.176 = 2.85 X

Less then 3X for all the 10th place finishers, not even half of your 6X claims. And from a quick briefing of the Top-25, about the worse I noticed was a 4.6X.
Thinking you'd need to go back in time at least 10-years in Benchrest stats to get closer to your claims. The evolving progress in Benchrest, is playing hard on your proposed theories of it.
Donovan

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

Hey, this is fun! From the 2017 FISS LV100:

50th place LV grand: 0.304,0.306,0.434,0.222,0.319 (1.95x)
100th place LV grand: 0.224,0.352,0.339,0.390,0.419 (1.87x)
150th place LV grand: 0.269,0.289,0.219,0.226,0.390 (1.78x)

Bart, how about some data/analysis of your own -- for a refreshing change -- to support your unsubstantiated assertion that "each competitors' groups easily have up to a 6X or more spread in size"?

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

Throwin' Bart a bone with this ugly 8.56x from Gary Ocock.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Come on fellas he was talking about benchres....... oh, nevermind.

 

[6MMsteve]

chicken pot pie again I'm going to KFC

 

[Dusty Stevens]

chicken pot pie again I'm going to KFC

get some of those cheap microwave ones.

 

[Jet]

Back to the OP. Whenever you change a component expect variations. Each brand of brass will require it's own load work up, even the brass used from the same manufacturer but a different lot.

Good Shooting

Rich

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Back to the OP. Whenever you change a component expect variations. Each brand of brass will require it's own load work up, even the brass used from the same manufacturer but a different lot.

Good Shooting

Rich

The OP has dropped out due to issues with not being able to post about religion on this site.

 

[Cleatus]

We know it's very common or 308 win brass weight variances in different manufacturer brass, which also means volume. But with size difference in 300 wm with the same variances in thickness, the volume differences are probably quite large. If a load has 30 to 45 more grains of powder, a 5 percent size difference is big.

 

[dmoran]

If you ever look at the 5-shot group results of a benchrest match, each competitors' groups easily have up to a 6X or more spread in size.

@Bart B.
Knowing that your "spread" inputs to Benchrest are grossly in error, or outdated by a great many years/decades, and since you have repeatedly posted this misinformation many times here and on other shooting related forums, feel it is time you correct your error and false implications (at the least, from this day forward). And strongly suggest you research into modern day Benchrest, before making any future implications or comparisons to it.

Attaching below "spread data" to all the participants results from this years 2018 Cactus Classic.
Here is stats from the spread data in the attachment:

• Spread Average: 2.22 X
• Best Spread: 1.1 X
• Worse Spread: 9.6 X
• Count of 5X or more: 5 (less then 1% of all the participants)
• Class finishing positions of the 5: 1st / 33rd / 129th / 133rd / 136th

From these stats, as well as from other Benchrest discipline stats (600/1000 BR), the fact is that 5 and 6X spreads are a rarity, and make up a very small percentage (less then 1% to many BR matches).

The 2.22 X spread average from this years Cactus, is statistically similar of all Benchrest currently.
My own 1000-BR career spread stats from all the targets I've shot over 14-years, "the best to the worse" being 4.93 X for HV-Gun (10-shots), and 6.67 X for LT-Gun (5-shots).
Donovan

 

[Bart B.]

For those who don't understand, or realize, or comprehend that "up to a 6X spread" includes a 1.001 X spread and all other increments of any multiple up to and including a 6.000 X spread, I cannot help you grasp reality.

It's simple grade school math. Pick one of these to help understand......

* Biggest number divided by smallest number equals the spread.

* 3 divided by 1 is three.

* There's a 3X spread from 1 to 3.

* 3 is three times bigger than 1.

Therefore, three is a 3X multiple of one. In other words, 3`s three times bigger than 1.

Replace "3" and "three" with bigger (smaller?) respective values to get larger (lower?) spread multiples.

 

[riflewoman]

@Bart B. : here is 5 target scores from one of the participants in 100yd LT Varmint:

• 0.383
• 0.282
• 0.242
• 0.185
• 0.191

Show us your spread math to them, so that we can grasp your version of reality.

This competitor and his rifle is basically a “twos” shooter. Not really competitive anymore. The rifle needs a tuneup, the shooter needs a tuneup. There needs to be groups under .1 and nothing bigger than a .3.

As it sits, the agg is .256. Taking 0.1 off all the groups gets the agg to .156 and that would be very competitive .

 

[dmoran]

For those who don't understand, or realize, or comprehend that "up to a 6X spread" includes a 1.001 X spread and all other increments of any multiple up to and including a 6.000 X spread, I cannot help you grasp reality.

It's simple grade school math. Pick one of these to help understand......

* Biggest number divided by smallest number equals the spread.

* 3 divided by 1 is three.

* There's a 3X spread from 1 to 3.

* 3 is three times bigger than 1.

Therefore, three is a 3X multiple of one. In other words, 3`s three times bigger than 1.

Replace "3" and "three" with bigger (smaller?) respective values to get larger (lower?) spread multiples.

Well look at the attachment I posted. They all are computed into a "spread column" just as your saying to do it. And is how everyone above in the earlier replies reported there's as well.