Bullet goes to sleep mode

[Yote Hunter]

I have experienced more than one rifle shooting VLD high
Ballistic coefficient bullets in overbore cartridges that you could not judge its long range accuracy by shooting at 100 yards. That I have seen for sure. I know how to judge parallax and have shot groundhogs in excess of 3/4 mile so I always start accuracy tests at 500 yards. I don't waste time and ammo shooting at 100 yards with a gun that is intended for 1000 plus yards. I sat on the front porch of the guy that currently holds the smallest group light gun world record at 1000 yards (Tom Sarver 1.4" for 5) and he also agreed that testing closer than 300 yards was not the best indicator of a long range accuracy load. He definitely knows something to accomplish what he did.

 

[Steve Blair]

He definitely knows something to accomplish what he did.

This a fairly common logic error. What you are saying is:

1. "The guy" shot a world record group at 1000 yards.
2. "The guy" says shooting groups at less than 300 yards is not the best indicator.
3. Because (1) is true and "the guy" definitely knows something, (2) therefore is true.

It is not necessarily true because (2) is conjecture and not directly related to (1).

I suggest completing one of the many available online (free) logic courses available. Stanford has a good one.

https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic

 

[Yote Hunter]

You are right Steve.

 

[ireload2]

No you are wrong.
When the bullet is precessing its nose is not pointed perfectly along the path of travel.
As it settles down and the nose quits wobbling it points along the path of travel and the rate of divergence is reduced.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
There is no external redirecting of the bullet.

QUOTE="chkunz, post: 36749063, member: 1287560"]To "merely quit diverging as much" means that they would have to change direction. Per Newton's laws of motion they must be acted on by some force to do that.[/QUOTE]

 

[ireload2]

It is not necessarily wrong either. Your logic needs a little tune up because the shooter may be right.

This a fairly common logic error. What you are saying is:

1. "The guy" shot a world record group at 1000 yards.
2. "The guy" says shooting groups at less than 300 yards is not the best indicator.
3. Because (1) is true and "the guy" definitely knows something, (2) therefore is true.

It is not necessarily true because (2) is conjecture and not directly related to (1).

I suggest completing one of the many available online (free) logic courses available. Stanford has a good one.

https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic

 

[Steve Blair]

It is not necessarily wrong either. Your logic needs a little tune up because the shooter may be right.

I did not say he was wrong and that is what the reciprocal of "It is not necessarily true" implies. Perhaps some basic grammar refresh would help you, old son.

 

[ireload2]

You clearly implied he might be wrong by suggesting that he review your source of imperfect logic bubba.

I did not say he was wrong and that is what the reciprocal of "It is not necessarily true" implies. Perhaps some basic grammar refresh would help you, old son.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Bryan Litz has done extensive analysis of the phenomenon of pitching/yawing of the bullet nose for some distance after it leaves the bore. People like Robert McCoy and Bryan have referred to this process as "epicyclic swerve": http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/epswerve.html

According to their work, this does, in fact, occur. However, Bryan also clearly points out that the pitch/yaw in the bullet nose is nowhere near enough to account for the kind of deviation in angular dispersion at different distances that is being discussed here (i.e. 1.0 MOA at 100 yd but 0.5 MOA at 200 or 300 yd). Until such time as I know more than people such as Robert and Bryan about this topic (i.e. likely never), I'm willing to accept their well-informed opinions on the topic and conclude that there must be some other explanation such as parallax error that accounts for the apparent decrease in angular dispersion over distance that some claim to have observed.

 

[Ned Ludd]

This phenomenon needs an acronym. I suggest Dynamically Orthogonal Gyroscopically Convergent Radially Accelerated Projectiles.

UPDATE

Responding to those questioning my acronym proposal:

It is true, despite being an avid shooter of many years and having a Mastiff in the family, I have not closely observed DOGCRAP. When opportunities have arisen, I have largely kept DOGCRAP at arm's length, perhaps arising from an aversion to learning more than I need to know. This does not mean that it does not exist, many people have indicated direct observation, even contact, with DOGCRAP. Any one wanting to know more about this important phenomenon should undertake very detailed observation of DOGCRAP at every opportunity. The more closely DOGCRAP is observed, the more we will learn. DOGCRAP is just the manifestation of profound forces, the end result of which is DOGCRAP. It is the underlying forces producing DOGCRAP that we need to understand. So, Godspeed to those treading the DOGCRAP knowledge path. I hope your journey ends with a fuller, deeper understanding of that phenomenon we know as DOGCRAP.

Also, just to be clear, Steve is not referring here to the same phenomenon as Dynamically Orthogonal Gyroscopic-Dispersion Orbital Overload, or DOG-DOO In this context, DOGCRAP and DOG-DOO are not the same thing.

 

[Steve Blair]

You clearly implied he might be wrong by suggesting that he review your source of imperfect logic bubba.

You are correct, he might be wrong. That is not the same as saying he is wrong. My original point was that the statements did not prove the point. I took the Stanford course not long ago and found it interesting. Perhaps you, too, should consider it.

As for Bubba; Yes, I was raised in the South where my fellow Bubbas and I were taught proper grammar, old son.

 

[Lenard]

Some 40 years ago, a friend had a 7mm built on a 300 weatherby case. He loaded a 175 Speer Grand Slam bullet(if memory serves me correctly). I do know it chronographed at 3400 fps with a case full of H870 powder. I have shot with him at 100, in incriments to 500 yards. Never ever saw it shoot under an inch at 100, but have seen him shoot under s4" at 500 quite a few times. By the way, the barrel was a Douglas.

We surmised that the bullet just did not get stabilized until past 100 yards.

 

[M-61]

Quote from Lenard:
"We surmised that the bullet just did not get stabilized until past 100 yards."

Back to where I was before the giraffe spilled the popcorn. What would cause this stabilization during flight?

 

[chkunz]

Bryan Litz has done extensive analysis of the phenomenon of pitching/yawing of the bullet nose for some distance after it leaves the bore. People like Robert McCoy and Bryan have referred to this process as "epicyclic swerve": http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/epswerve.html

According to their work, this does, in fact, occur. However, Bryan also clearly points out that the pitch/yaw in the bullet nose is nowhere near enough to account for the kind of deviation in angular dispersion at different distances that is being discussed here (i.e. 1.0 MOA at 100 yd but 0.5 MOA at 200 or 300 yd). Until such time as I know more than people such as Robert and Bryan about this topic (i.e. likely never), I'm willing to accept their well-informed opinions on the topic and conclude that there must be some other explanation such as parallax error that accounts for the apparent decrease in angular dispersion over distance that some claim to have observed.

Excellent response.

 

[ebb]

I had a rifle that I thought was doing this, I changed the bullet and didn't see it any more. I did a bunch of reading on the net and talking to benchrest guys and came up with this explanation. A hot load or maybe an over load may be a better description, makes a lot of muzzle blast and upsets the bullet as it leaves the bore. Its yawing as it tries to fly, it eventually travels enough to escape the muzzle blast and the super high RPMs made by the rifling ( think gyroscope ) coax the bullet to fly straight and they eventually win out and the bullet flies normally from then on. I have this idea that flat based bullets are less prone to this than boat tails and this is why short range benchresters use flat base bullets more than boat tails. I don't claim this to be fact, but I think it is possible and explains my issues and maybe yours.

 

[Yote Hunter]

To Steve Blair. I don't think you know me and I didn't know you but I
Believe I'm really getting to know you. I was merely stating my experience which I have seen first hand. That was a fact. Others that were very competitive and usually were the ones to beat during long range competitions shared my same thoughts and experiences. I merely told this to try to help. Most people that I have met in the shooting world are very respectful, friendly, and informative. But talking in a condescending and belittling manner must be your way if someone shares something they have experienced. Best I remember you weren't there when these incidents have occurred that's why I'm figuring that you must be of a much greater level of wisdom than myself to know so much more about what I have experienced and to not even be present is unbelievable. I'm sure this is not your first time talking down to people about there views. My suggestion to you Steve is to learn how to communicate to people in a more respectful manner and take lessons in respect.

 

[ireload2]

Bubba you need real logic. Try the math, physics and engineering departments of a good university. Semantics and word games are for the bubba losing the argument because you have nothing else to resort to.
I guess you being a real southerner puts you in the same company with George Wallace and Lester Maddox.....jajajajajajaja
Now all you need is to learn Spanish to go with the southern grammar, boy.

You are correct, he might be wrong. That is not the same as saying he is wrong. My original point was that the statements did not prove the point. I took the Stanford course not long ago and found it interesting. Perhaps you, too, should consider it.

As for Bubba; Yes, I was raised in the South where my fellow Bubbas and I were taught proper grammar, old son.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

 

[Dusty Stevens]

 

[joshb]

 

[chkunz]

No you are wrong.
When the bullet is precessing its nose is not pointed perfectly along the path of travel.
As it settles down and the nose quits wobbling it points along the path of travel and the rate of divergence is reduced.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
There is no external redirecting of the bullet.

QUOTE="chkunz, post: 36749063, member: 1287560"]To "merely quit diverging as much" means that they would have to change direction. Per Newton's laws of motion they must be acted on by some force to do that.

[/QUOTE]
When you say something like, "No you are wrong" it turns folks off and shuts down meaningful technical discussion from folks that have something significant to offer on the subject. I think it is better to just give your technical explanation on your opinion of the subject. This subject is highly technical and simply saying that you have seen it or that a friend has seen it without adequate technical justification is not helpful. Fortunately there are some good technically sound inputs on this interesting topic on this thread.