Bullet goes to sleep mode

[jlow]

I don't think anyone observed any projectile achieve both better moa at distance and worse moa at 100yds. That would take firing and measuring both results from any single fired projectile.
I haven't ever heard someone claim they observed, much less measured this.
And with that removed, so are the spiraling football tip notions, which by now, I'm sure Bryan has determined holds no relation to the subject.

The claims I hear, are [often]better grouping results in moa at distance -vs- 100yds.
Huge difference in context, and in logically approaching the problem.
What we really need is an accomplished competitor, whom the shooting community would even believe, to bring forward an honest/best effort demonstration of his ability to shoot better at distance than close. It would be a best effort because the causing conditions would have to be reached before it could honestly be demonstrated. Could be today he can shoot better in moa at 100, but tomorrow 'he's doing it again'. Then peers could circle the wagon until isolating the root cause.
Would be very interesting.

Brian actually worked out a system to get precision data from the same bullet at both distances. Basically the bullet is fired at a thin sheet of paper at 100 yards and after it goes through the paper it also impact at a regular target an extended distance. By firing a number of rounds this way, he can get a sense of grouping for the same bullets at both distances.

 

[BartsBullets]

Cant anyone here show some proof that it exists? Come on take Bryans chalange if its really true. All i hear are crickets.

Grimstod

I'll be your Huckleberry! Im pretty busy but I think I now have access to a range that I can pull the test off. It will be awhile but I'll get it done.

What I have observed is that it is possible to have a gun (6mm Dasher) shooting 3 shot groups in the .150 to .250 range at 100 yards. Move the gun over to the 600 yard target and have gun shoot 3 to 3 1/2 inches straight vertical.

I then tuned he gun at 600 and got it shooting 3 shot groups that ranged around .800 to 1.200 consistently. Took the gun back to 100 yards and the groups didn't look any better or worse then before.

Now that's not shooting through two pieces of paper. I'll try that later.

So as far as Litz's test. Yeah it very well could be the same and it can also be quite different.


Bart

 

[Frankr]

I really think it is a whole lot simpler than you think. Have I seen it. I do not shoot groups at 100 yards any more. I tune at 200 yards and then shoot it further to see if it holds up...What I think happens is the "wind" how ever slight it maybe or just air currents. at 100 yards you fire a 1 1/4" five shot group it is say 1.5 inches high horizontal is on. At 200 yards you fire a 5 shot group that is 3/4" dead center Vertically but it may be off horizontally some..How did that happen.?
I would assume the bullet tipped and yawed in the wind over it's trajectory where the bullets impacted closer together.
Now was the bullet a little unstable during its 100 yards flight path..Maybe...Did the wind tip the bullet where they became more stable..must have..or maybe it was just lucky..maybe a stronger wind at 100 would have produced a better group there. Have you ever seen a short range bench rest match where all of a sudden all the flags where hanging a very mild to no wind condition and everyone was expecting to see real small groups now and it seemed almost everyone fired a bigger group except a few nailed it? wonder why? I am going to add to this so you maybe understand what I believe happens..Bart maybe has seen this. I have asked about it with no answer. you are at a 100 yards BR match and all the flags are hung out and the daisy wheels are spinning in the middle of a sea of wind flags two flags are hanging straight down daisy wheels stopped. they may even be turning around in a circle..flags to the left and right are hung out . How is that possible.. I don't know..in the example I posted the 100 yard target is not in the same place on the range as the 200 yards target. so the bullet passed threw completely different air/conditions there for the 200 yards tune was better than the 100 yard tune..do I think the MOA shrank..NO but it shot better threw the condition at 200 than it did at 100..that is kind of what I think happens. even at different or longer ranges..But it does seem if you get a decent tune at 200 it will hold better at long range than if at 100..But there are so many variables involved that is not always the case.

 

[Mozella]

It should be noted that in the 17th century, physician and chemist Jean Baptiste van Helmont, devised a home recipe for the manufacture of mice. “If a soiled shirt is placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat,” he wrote, “the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the wheat will, after approximately 21 days, transform the wheat into mice.”

I haven't actually tried this recipe, but I have seen first hand that mice can be spontaneously generated from dust, especially dust in dark corners. By the way, van Helmont went on to become the leading external ballistics expert of his day.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Brian actually worked out a system to get precision data from the same bullet at both distances. Basically the bullet is fired at a thin sheet of paper at 100 yards and after it goes through the paper it also impact at a regular target an extended distance. By firing a number of rounds this way, he can get a sense of grouping for the same bullets at both distances.

I'd think one would need to fire a number of groups at the far distance with and without the near thin sheet of paper to be sure the paper was not increasing the average group size on the far target.

 

[Grimstod]

So if you believed that there was life(intelligent) on Pluto and you could not prove it, we should still believe you because of this same argument?

I know there is no intelligent from you Grimstod one rifle will give you one thing, then another something else. But I know I've watched more vapor trail than you have and and I'm giving you the facts, if I'm seeing different in vapor tails that tells me something is different.

Joe Salt

Once I was talking to Mark, a pilot for Delta, and i pointed out the vapor trailes coming off the wings of a plain. Mark said that as a plain flys it hits diferent densitie leveles of air. Thus causing variety in turbulance. So i take the vapor trail theory as just that, a theory. Not proof. Show it on paper and then lets talk.

And how in hatties would you ever mesure a vapor trail??? I am sure your eye can mesure the varianc of a bullets vapor trail size down to the hundreth of an inch from 500yards.

 

[Joe Salt]

And how in hatties would you ever mesure a vapor trail??? I am sure your eye can mesure the varianc of a bullets vapor trail size down to the hundreth of an inch from 500yards.

What I am trying to get though your thick head, is I can stand behind you and tell you what shot went out left or right or if the bullet isn't flying straight. So don't tell me what I can see. Or tell me what is happening to a bullet in flight. I've been watching them for over 40 years and I don't need a Calculator to tell me how many clicks I need to be on at 1000 yards or back to 100. Ask matt how many times I've told guys including him what shot was out of the group.
And yes Turbulence do play a big part of the whole picture, why else would you think distance plays a big part of why we can't keep them in one hole at a 1000 yards.

Joe Salt

 

[dcali]

The trouble with these theories is that nobody can explain how it might work in a manner that doesn't totally invalidate basic physics (F=ma). Dispersion is set once the bullet leaves the muzzle, excepting that due to cyclic motion, but even that is relative to the trajectory, not the group center (how would the bullet know where the group's true center is? We can't even tell after the fact with certainty, and we have brains.) If dispersion is going to change down range, there must be a force involved to push it. If you can find that force, EVERYONE will believe you. Trust me. The trouble is that a force of that magnitude, if it existed, would throw off the calculations we get from 6DOF models which are known to be very accurate (and yet do not account for this mystery force). So *at best* we're talking about a very specific set of conditions that don't apply in 99.999% of situations, which makes it a whole lot less interesting.

I'll never say never, and absence of proof is not proof of absence, but there is a VERY high bar here. I find "I saw it once" very unconvincing. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Bryan to pay up.

 

[alinwa]

It should be noted that in the 17th century, physician and chemist Jean Baptiste van Helmont, devised a home recipe for the manufacture of mice. “If a soiled shirt is placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat,” he wrote, “the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the wheat will, after approximately 21 days, transform the wheat into mice.”

I haven't actually tried this recipe, but I have seen first hand that mice can be spontaneously generated from dust, especially dust in dark corners. By the way, van Helmont went on to become the leading external ballistics expert of his day.

Beautiful, just beautiful.......

Rock On!

 

[rogn]

Would the electronic targets used as in Olympic competition be precise enough to measure groups? If so could not several be linked over several different yardages. Then a known quantity railgun be fired over an established trajectory to determine bullet path. Of course the 1000K target could be conventional. A few to several hundred thousand $ and maybe a weeks time or so. Insurance policy on the electronic targets. Different bullets, different cartridges, different barrels could be evaluated in this way. The number of angels could be quantified. .....might be fun.

 

[ED3]

I suspect something could be learned by those believing in the 'sleep' theory by having a number of shooters- with no dog in the fight- shoot a series of several separate groups, with different aiming targets than the impact point being used; in other words- aim at 100, and have an impact target at 300/ 600 (not shooting through the close target- seperate strings) , and aim at 300/600, and have impact target at 100. The results would tend to prove, or disprove the bullet sleep vs a parallax/ aiming issue.
Or use electronic targets at 100, and 600 while aiming at 100 and 600

 

[6MMsteve]

And how in hatties would you ever mesure a vapor trail??? I am sure your eye can mesure the varianc of a bullets vapor trail size down to the hundreth of an inch from 500yards.

What I am trying to get though your thick head, is I can stand behind you and tell you what shot went out left or right or if the bullet isn't flying straight. So don't tell me what I can see. Or tell me what is happening to a bullet in flight. I've been watching them for over 40 years and I don't need a Calculator to tell me how many clicks I need to be on at 1000 yards or back to 100. Ask matt how many times I've told guys including him what shot was out of the group.
And yes Turbulence do play a big part of the whole picture, why else would you think distance plays a big part of why we can't keep them in one hole at a 1000 yards.

Joe Salt

yep I remember when I was at Penn the 1st time and some of the guys showed all of us the Vapor trail we thought it was just cool as heck. but we didn't get on paper that day, but still had a blast.

 

[Bart B.]

I've discussed this compensation issue about long range groups subtending smaller MOA sizes than at mid and short ranges with long range competitors from the British Commonweath nations. They all agreed it happens, but at short ranges 300 yards and closer, the effect is difficult to see with high power rifles. One of their engineers calculated how their long 303 barrels compensated for big velocity spreads with cordite loaded ammo in the early 1900's. When they started using 7.62 NATO ammo, its smaller velocity spreads mitigated most of the problems but can still do it.

It can be seen with rimfire 22's and tuners on barrels adjust the muzzle axis vertical whip frequency so slower bullets leave at a higher angles than faster ones. Exactly the same compensation the Brits had a century ago but on a smaller scale.

Varmint Al's web site has good explanations. Border Barrel's Geoffery Kolbe has good explanations. Lots of benchrest barrels have tuners.

http://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/barrel_vibrations.htm

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm

One of the USA military teams reported better accuracy at 600 yards than at 300 yards with M14NM rifles and the same lot of ammo as tested in accuracy cradles.

I don't think Brian Litz acknowledges this. Or even wants to discuss it.

Lots of people think it's impossible.

 

[Bart B.]

Would the electronic targets used as in Olympic competition be precise enough to measure groups?

Yes.

https://www.army.mil/article/89486/RATS_Saving_Time__Money_at_Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant

Lake City arsenal (operated by Orbital ATK) now uses them for small arms ammo accuracy tests. Picture (above) shows screen to be over 7 feet square. Mean radius is near instantly calculated for shot groups with 200 to 300 rounds fired. I will be touring their facility this fall; getting anxious.

 

[Bart B.]

Browning's BOSS was the first tuner put on commercial rifle barrels. It changes the muzzle axis vertical whip frequency so slower bullets leave at higher angles than faster ones at lower angles. The BOSS lowers the frequency as it moves towards the muzzle. Best accuracy happens when all bullets leave on the up swing.

 

[SheepDog]

I typically shoot larger groups at 25 yards than at 50 with my 22LR. I did this the other day using a 1/2" bull and then I decided that at 25 yards I need a smaller target to aim at. The groups at 25 yards shrunk to about a third of what they were before when I used a 1/4" bull.
It might be the natural tendency to focus harder on the more distant targets. That would result in smaller groups at more distant range.

It's not that I believe that a bullet can become more stable as it travels down range, it's just that no one has ever explained how it can happen without defying the laws of physics. I have an open mind but I still filter what goes in.

 

[Bart B.]

It's not that I believe that a bullet can become more stable as it travels down range, it's just that no one has ever explained how it can happen without defying the laws of physics. I have an open mind but I still filter what goes in.

Go back to post 194 then open the link ending with "...tuning_a_barrel.htm" to learn how it's done with rimfire 22 ammo.

The other two links have other good information.

Virtually all good bullets "go to sleep" before they're a hundred yards down range. Sierra Bullets proved that decades ago.

Bad bullets never go to sleep. Their tip nutates about the trajectory axis all the way to target. Their trajectory is more curved vertically because they have more drag. They also leave the muzzle axis in different directions from centrifugal forces due to unbalance. No bullet knows where it is mid point in its trajectory relative to the average of all others; it cannot turn back to the mid point of all previous ones because it has no guidance control system to turn it back to center.

 

[ireload2]

It is real easy to explain but people who have limited understanding of physics cannot alter their own faulty logic.
The result is they keep arguing that it cannot be even though they can observe the results directly. Jael could not drive it into their heads with a 10 lb hammer. Just ask chkunz and others.

The trouble with these theories is that nobody can explain how it might work in a manner that doesn't totally invalidate basic physics (F=ma). Dispersion is set once the bullet leaves the muzzle, excepting that due to cyclic motion, but even that is relative to the trajectory, not the group center (how would the bullet know where the group's true center is? We can't even tell after the fact with certainty, and we have brains.) If dispersion is going to change down range, there must be a force involved to push it. If you can find that force, EVERYONE will believe you. Trust me. The trouble is that a force of that magnitude, if it existed, would throw off the calculations we get from 6DOF models which are known to be very accurate (and yet do not account for this mystery force). So *at best* we're talking about a very specific set of conditions that don't apply in 99.999% of situations, which makes it a whole lot less interesting.

I'll never say never, and absence of proof is not proof of absence, but there is a VERY high bar here. I find "I saw it once" very unconvincing. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Bryan to pay up.

 

[Ggmac]

It's easy , a glass of warm milk followed by a zanax , anything will go to sleep .

 

[Ned Ludd]

It's not that I believe that a bullet can become more stable as it travels down range, it's just that no one has ever explained how it can happen without defying the laws of physics.

Uh, yes, they have. A bullet becomes more stable as it travels downrange because it's linear velocity decreases much faster than it's rotational velocity. Its spin relative to its linear velocity (i.e. gyroscopic stability) increases the farther it flies.

The arguments in this case have more to do with relative precision at short versus long range, as opposed to stability, per se. Certainly they're both connected, but semantics become important in this particular discussion. Some claim their groups get smaller with increasing distance, and we're not necessarily talking large distances, either, say from about 25, 50, or maybe 100 yds, out to distances as short as 300 yd. There have been many attempts to explain how this could be so; most are lacking. I find the simplest explanation most likely to be correct: there are a number of possible sources of shooter error that increase at closer distance, including parallax, a tendency to follow the last bullet hole when shooting groups, etc. etc. etc. I don't doubt there are those that truly BELIEVE their groups are shrinking as distance increases, but definitive proof of this phenomena has yet to be documented AFAIK.