1000yd Benchrest Load Development

[johara1]

You can tune at 100 if you know how, this a proven fact....... Jim

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

My .250 at 100 gave me .675 at 300 . 4
Targets 5 shots each
And 1.065 at 600 5 shots the other was 1 578 1000 forget it the conditions get bad by the time we can shoot . Larry

Explain me this Larry, - HOW did you get those bullets to "converge" inwardly at 300, & 600 yards ? - I'll Never be convinced that groups get smaller at longer ranges from a MOA standpoint than they were "recorded" at, at a shorter range.
- There are NO "magic forces" that "miracle" bullets into a small MOA than at the closer range.
IMO a .250 at 100 yds in "reality" can't end up smaller than approx. 2.50 inches at 1000 yards. or 1.50" at 600 yards. (so how did you get them to go inward / converge to a 1.065" ??)

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Bullets can and do converge at longer range. They can and do shoot smaller moa at longer range, with the right tune.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

You can tune at 100 if you know how, this a proven fact....... Jim

Of course "we" can tune at 100 yards, But IMO it must also be proven at a substantially longer range. - Both these 5 shot groups were shot at 100 with a Light-Class (16.9 Lb.) 300 WSM - They both show what I consider as very good potential. - They were shot just after I was breaking in the barrel on the first outing with the rifle. - They need to be tested at a "substantially longer range" before I'm willing to say "good to go" at a match, which is what I'm working towards being ready for. - Thanks, Ron

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

Bullets can and do converge at longer range. They can and do shoot smaller moa at longer range, with the right tune.

Educate Me Alex - I have an "open spot on my plate" - I'm willing to learn - Send me a PM - OR explain it for all who read the post. - I understand barrel vibration & harmonics. This being said, I'm looking for a provable & scientific explanation that has full merit.

 

[savagedasher]

When you shoot conditiond is the largest factor you have to deal with . Tune at 100 Is the least effected with conditions just have to shoot small . I like my tune to where I get To the edge of horizontal with no vertical
Using a tuner it is way to do it Larry

 

[johara1]

Bullets are more affected up close, if they are not stable. You do the work at 100 it will work long. Jim

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

Bullets are more affected up close, if they are not stable. You do the work at 100 it will work long. Jim

Jim,

I do agree that bullets are less stabilized in the early portion of their flight. - I'll do some more research and I've had a couple other members correspond via PM

Thanks, Ron

 

[VaRandy]

There is a difference in not being fully stabilized for some distance out of the barrel and bullets magically gravitating to a central point at distance, There is NO way that physics would allow it. Imagine a group of bullets on their way down range with one at every number on the clock and all merge into the middle. May work for the 12 o'clock one but no others. if you shoot better long than short, look for a reason other than physics. And let me know. A bullet does not have memory out of the barrel that guides it to a central location,

 

[Mozella]

Bullets can and do converge at longer range. They can and do shoot smaller moa at longer range, with the right tune.

I haven't checked lately, but for a long time Bryan Litz had a hefty reward for anyone who would come to his range and prove exactly what you are saying. If you can demonstrate this myth, he said he would even pay your travel and motel expenses, if I recall correctly. Contact Mr. Litz to see if the offer still stands.

He devotes an entire chapter in his latest book to this very subject and includes details on how he tested the theory by shooting through a very thin close target as well as a distant target and comparing the results. As expected by most scientific shooters and EVERYONE who has ever studied physics, the idea of bullets converging at a distance is nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking.

 

[Raythemanroe]

I have trouble with the fact that people believe bullets disperse in a MOA measurement..

Ray

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I haven't checked lately, but for a long time Bryan Litz had a hefty reward for anyone who would come to his range and prove exactly what you are saying. If you can demonstrate this myth, he said he would even pay your travel and motel expenses, if I recall correctly. Contact Mr. Litz to see if the offer still stands.

He devotes an entire chapter in his latest book to this very subject and includes details on how he tested the theory by shooting through a very thin close target as well as a distant target and comparing the results. As expected by most scientific shooters and EVERYONE who has ever studied physics, the idea of bullets converging at a distance is nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking.

That offer excludes positive compensation. His offer was for someone to prove bullets "go to sleep" or stabilize. Mr, Litz is a very smart guy and I respect him because he actually tests. He is not, however, a Benchrest shooter. You need to be shooting very small to see this stuff. We have talked, argued, and agreed to disagree.

 

[Raythemanroe]

Litz needs to stretch his tunnel to 1k


Ray

 

[kountryboy2]

That offer excludes positive compensation. His offer was for someone to prove bullets "go to sleep" or stabilize. Mr, Litz is a very smart guy and I respect him because he actually tests. He is not, however, a Benchrest shooter. You need to be shooting very small to see this stuff. We have talked, argued, and agreed to disagree.

Also you have a noted Rimfire builder (Bill Calfee) who also has centerfire experience saying that their is no such thing as positive compensation. Lol who do you believe?

 

[R.Morehouse]

Also you have a noted Rimfire builder (Bill Calfee) who also has centerfire experience saying that their is no such thing as positive compensation. Lol who do you believe?

I believe what is happening on the target. The thought behind how pos. comp. works makes very simple sense to me ( self proclaimed Flintstone ) and the targets ( shot through the chrono. ) look to me that it really is pretty Flintstone to understand..........But it really CAN'T be that simple......can it?

 

[Raythemanroe]

I believe what is happening on the target. The thought behind how pos. comp. works makes very simple sense to me ( self proclaimed Flintstone ) and the targets ( shot through the chrono. ) look to me that it really is pretty Flintstone to understand..........But it really CAN'T be that simple......can it?

Really is simple, you tune to where the gun wants to shoot, ladder testing shows the positive compensation.. You can see it with your own eyes..


Ray

 

[CaptainMal]

I use the chronograph and find a load and seating depth that shows low ES with a velocity I like. Then I move out to 600 or 1,000 yards and TURN THE TUNER. What that does is alter the nodal vibration pattern of the barrel. You can usually find the right tuner position that provides Alex's "positive compensation" and makes the smallest groups out there.

 

[dragman]

Some of my best LONG range guns only shoot 1/2 or 3/4 MOA at 100 yards but with good conditions will shoot 1/2 or better at OVER 1000. It's not always the best 100 with the best ES

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

Positive compensation and its effects on point of impact don't violate any laws of physics. At the compensation point for a given distance to the target, lower-velocity bullets depart the muzzle at a (slightly) higher angle than higher-velocity bullets because of the barrel's upward motion and the differences in barrel time for slower and faster bullets. The trajectories converge at the target distance and by necessity diverge everywhere else in the trajectory (including at the muzzle). Draw it for yourself and see.

As Alex says, you can't easily see the divergence at ranges other than the target range because the differences are small. But with high-precision gear -- and I hope we can agree that a rifle shooting 1-2" groups at 1000 yards is a precise instrument -- it makes perfect sense that the divergence is perceptible at ranges other than the target range.

As for whether positive compensation exists at all, see Raythemanroe's post above. It's a simple matter to test it for yourself.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I stopped trying to convince anyone a while ago. I just put the info out there and people can use it or not. I cant say I know of someone who has actually went out and tried it, that did not become a believer. Its actually pretty obvious when you see it work. I have seen many guys who have denied it instantly change their opinions when they seen it. I have not shot competitively in a few years, my advise is contact 1k BR shooters who are setting current records and winning consistently year after year barrel after barrel, and ask them how they tune. Most dont post it publicly because they get tired of arguing with people who have NEVER and WONT even try the methods they offer up. I have tried every common method of tuning.