Bullet goes to sleep mode

[jmatters]

There was a very lengthy thread on this a couple of years ago. ( I can not find it). There was many answers to this. I am totally unable to understand why a bullet that is traveling on a particular path would on its own (no wind) be inaccurate at one range (200) and then become dead on at say 600. If you could set targets at 200, 400 600, then 1000 yards (and allowing for drop by increased heights of the intermediate targets) this theory of 'bullets gong to sleep' should produce holes at say 10 o'clock high on 400, then maybe 2 o'clock high at 600 and then somehow be right on the money at 1000. One answer posted a diagram showing the bullet path looking like a cork screw. Since the bullet is unguided I see no reason for it to become accurate.
The above is a poor description but that merely shows how confusing this is to me if in fact is exists.

I expressed my skepticism of this situation in front of several High Masters, national record holders and Palma team members, and was told that the bullet is undergoing precession for some distance before it settles down into a more direct flight path.. Take it or leave it, but that was the accepted explanation in the mid 90's.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

All that im gonna add is theres money to be had from at least 2 places if you can do it. So next time you hear about it let em know to contact me and ill get em in touch with the money guys. Theres plane tickets and compensation on the line so tune up them sleepers!

 

[Grimstod]

I beleive Bryan Litz has an open chalange out for anyone who has a rifle or load that will do what this thread it talking about. Its been open for several years now and still no one has been able to proove it even exists. Because it doesn't probably So i am beginning to think its nonsense that a bullet can shoot better MOA at 600 then it can at 100y.

Until its proven or someone comes forward to take on his chalange its just a fairy tail.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Well it is a proven fact that a load can shoot smaller moa at distance. Look up positive compensation. Your best 1k load will have vertical at mid range if tuned by this method. This is not related to bullets settling down or going to sleep though.
You will see different sized bullet holes in paper with different tunes, so it seems reasonable that if your tune causes bullet yaw or instability that it should damp it self out like an arrow. I am definitely no expert though.

 

[Grimstod]

And where is the documented proof?

A true test is two targets set up. One at 100y and the second at 600 or more. You shoot though the first one and into the second one aiming at the second of course. The first target is set above the line of sight to the second. By this method Bryan Litz has not been able to produce a single example of the bullet sleep syndrome. And no one else has done it either.

According to Bryan Litz A canadian shooter of good report tried this with a rifle that consistenly shot .5moa at 600 but only .75 moa at 100y. What he found was that the rifle performed its normal .5moa at 600y but at 100 the group was in the .1moa.

Bullet sleep is a myth.

If anyone has a rifle/bullet combo that really does this please step forward and do this test.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

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

 

[Raythemanroe]

Grimstod, they are a lot more accomplished shooters behind a gun then Bryan Litz.. He may be a Fart Smeller, but he isn't the end all of conversations.. "Well Bryan Litz said", sorry but that doesn't explain anything.. Bullets don't travel in perfect MOA..

Think about when loading a hotter load, some times it hits lower at 100y because of less arc right? Guy shoots a one MOA group at 100y with mostly vertical dispersion, each individual round is not exactly the same speed, tune, weight, shape so you could understand a different actual BC for each bullet? The bullets that hit higher will at some point down range drop sooner.. Just one example of a bullet "NOT" traveling the same path through distance..


Ray

 

[Grimstod]

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

Ok this article demonstrates barrel tunning. It does not demonstrate non linear dispersion.

 

[Grimstod]

Grimstod, they are a lot more accomplished shooters behind a gun then Bryan Litz.. He may be a Fart Smeller, but he isn't the end all of conversations.. "Well Bryan Litz said", sorry but that doesn't explain anything.. Bullets don't travel in perfect MOA..

Think about when loading a hotter load, some times it hits lower at 100y because of less arc right? Guy shoots a one MOA group at 100y with mostly vertical dispersion, each individual round is not exactly the same speed, tune, weight, shape so you could understand a different actual BC for each bullet? The bullets that hit higher will at some point down range drop sooner.. Just one example of a bullet "NOT" traveling the same path through distance..


Ray

Then what keeps people from taking Bryan's challenge on this? Because non linear dispersion simply does not exist.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/applied-ballistics-shoot-thru-target-challenge.3861880/

 

[Grimstod]

"Interesting note; the top midle, and top right aim points were shot with a TRG-42, 338 Lapua Mag 1:10" twist and 300 grain Cutting Edge bullets. This was a deliberate test of a low stability case. Note that even though the bullets were key-holing at 300 yards, the groups weren't all that bad and were still proportional to their group at 100 yards. Why the bullets were stable enough to print round holes at 100 and not at 300 is another mystery. To be sure it wasn't interference from the paper, I also shot this same load direct to 300, and got the same keyholes." Bryan Litz

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Ok this article demonstrates barrel tunning. It does not demonstrate non linear dispersion.

You didnt read it did you?

 

[Grimstod]

You didnt read it did you?

I did. My statements still stands that the article does not in any way prove or demonstrate non linear dispersion.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Yes, and positive compensation would classify as non linear. Read it.

 

[Grimstod]

"Nevertheless; to date we've fired dozens of combinations of calibers, bullets, twist rates, etc. So far NOTHING has shown anything but near perfect linear dispersion." Bryan Litz.

Yes, and positive compensation would classify as non linear. Read it.

The article does not demonstrate it. Only shows the theory.


"The Applied Ballistics 'Shoot Thru Target' Challange
I'm inviting any shooter who has a rifle which exhibits non-linear dispersion to the Applied Ballistics Laboratory in Michigan to demonstrate the effect. I'll pay your travel and hotel stay (If you successfully demonstrate the effect, I'll even pay your *return* travel as well ) The objective is to produce a repeatable example of this phenomena so it can be studied and hopefully we can learn what's going on, and if it's how bullets really fly, or not." Bryan Litz

So I ask you or any one here, are you going to prove it? If its true then take the challenge!!

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I beleive Bryan Litz has an open chalange out for anyone who has a rifle or load that will do what this thread it talking about. Its been open for several years now and still no one has been able to proove it even exists. Because it doesn't probably So i am beginning to think its nonsense that a bullet can shoot better MOA at 600 then it can at 100y.

Until its proven or someone comes forward to take on his chalange its just a fairy tail.

There are important differences between unproven and disproven.

I'll agree that it is unproven and the theoretical arguments make it unlikely.

But saying it doesn't exist until it is proven is just silly. Lots of things exist before they are proven.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

If you were to actually read the article you would see the testing that was done, fact not theory. I dare you to read the whole thing

 

[Berger.Fan222]

If you were to actually read the article you would see the testing that was done, fact not theory. I dare you to read the whole thing

Again, it is very hard to prove a negative.

Does showing some number of purported cancer patients don't really have cancer disprove that cancer exists?

No. It just shows the attribution of the reported symptoms to cancer was wrong in those cases.

 

[Grimstod]

If you were to actually read the article you would see the testing that was done, fact not theory. I dare you to read the whole thing

And again i did read it. The reason it proves nothing is that they guy only tests at one distance. 50 meters. If he did a test at 50 and then 150meters. That would he proof. But he did not do that.

 

[MattPeetz]

Grimstod, they are a lot more accomplished shooters behind a gun then Bryan Litz.. He may be a Fart Smeller, but he isn't the end all of conversations.. "Well Bryan Litz said", sorry but that doesn't explain anything.. Bullets don't travel in perfect MOA..

Think about when loading a hotter load, some times it hits lower at 100y because of less arc right? Guy shoots a one MOA group at 100y with mostly vertical dispersion, each individual round is not exactly the same speed, tune, weight, shape so you could understand a different actual BC for each bullet? The bullets that hit higher will at some point down range drop sooner.. Just one example of a bullet "NOT" traveling the same path through distance..


Ray

Ray,

As i have done in a few other discussion groups on this subject,
If you can successfully prove this non linear dispersion at Bryan's lab, i will match Bryan's offer to you.
The ones that i have offered this too, have yet to do it. Why??
This isn't a chest thumping, if it truly exists, then it will be an easy money maker for you.

 

[Raythemanroe]

Ray,

As i have done in a few other discussion groups on this subject,
If you can successfully prove this non linear dispersion at Bryan's lab, i will match Bryan's offer to you.
The ones that i have offered this too, have yet to do it. Why??
This isn't a chest thumping, if it truly exists, then it will be an easy money maker for you.

If a well seasoned trusted shooter says he has experienced linear dispersion before, I wouldn't assume that he means all of his guns currently show this.. I would first ask how common and how likely are you to have a gun that performs that way.. I would not suggest for them to show me now or it is debunked, nor would I rest all my knowledge on someone I have never met.. I wonder If Bryan broadcasts how many failed experiments he has to one successful one.. Do you know if any of his efforts was to prove linear dispersion correct or all efforts were to prove it wrong, this is a very important question..

Ray