Bullet goes to sleep mode

[mikecr]

IMO, Bryan's investigation was too limited in that he challenged the shooting community to produce a gun that performed better in moa per distance. He also tried his best to produce the condition with ammo components.
As far as I know, improved performance with distance was never demonstrated -by someone doing so,, and then basics of conditions leading to that someone doing it investigated until reaching solution.
His endeavor seemed in defense of external ballistics rather than solving this mystery.

 

[memilanuk]

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

Alex,

Do you know if anyone has documented a similar test for center fire, long range? I know you and a number of other LR BR shooters swear by it, I get that. Most of the time when the topic comes up, that article by Kolbe seems to be the default (or only) fall-back argument. I just would like to see a successful demonstration, discussed in a technical manner... something more than 'go read this article on rimfire stuff and take it on faith that it applies to long range'.

Monte

 

[Alex Wheeler]

No, there isnt as far as I know. Rimfire guys are farther ahead than we are when it comes to understanding barrel harmonics, they have had to tune barrels rather than the load. We have a lot to learn from them.

 

[Grimstod]

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

 

[Berger.Fan222]

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

Repeating an invalid argument from absence does not make it any less invalid.

 

[Grimstod]

Repeating an invalid argument from absence does not make it any less invalid.

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

 

[Berger.Fan222]

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

At some point, an argument from absence can be convincing because a diligent search has been made in all the locations where evidence might reasonably be found.

Have all the bullets and all the twist rates and all the calibers really been tested?

I am not claiming the phenomena exists, I do not think it does. But since my belief is based on theory rather than sufficiently exhaustive experiment, it would be foolish to consider the answer to be scientifically settled. I admit my current opinion might later be proven wrong.

This highlights the difference between disproven and unproven. The claim of reduced dispersion at longer range attributed to bullets going to sleep is unproven. It is not disproven.

 

[Raythemanroe]

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

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

Trying not to be an A-Hole here, but you keep quoting someone else and have nothing for the conversation in your own experience or words.. You must understand that many accomplished shooters (World record holders) have stated they have experienced it.. Probably one of the most honest crowds out there, with a good many stating they have experienced it..

Ray

 

[DaveTooley]

As I said in my earlier post this can be measured with reliability. You may be not able to shoot but it's still there.
Below is Dopplar data I have. I can't say where it came from or what bullets where used but there is a pattern. Does it affect accuracy? I don't believe it does because who can shoot the third decimal place.
All the data I have shows any variations in BC that aren't linear settle down by 700 yds.
Bullet @ 100 yds. 200 yds. 300yds. 400 yds. 500 yds. 600 yds. 700 yds.
#1 .332 .358 .355 .354 .354 .357 .360
#2 .372 .378 .377 .377 .378 .380 .383
#3 .325 .349 .347 .347 .347 .345 .350
#4 .283 .284 .285 .284 .287 .292 .299
#5 .290 .288 .287 .287 .287 .288 .291

 

[jlow]

I think the difference here is although a lot of people feel they have experienced it, none of it has been demonstrated under laboratory conditions where things are properly controlled. This is the reason why all scientific claims are never accepted unless the person who makes the claim designed the studies, does the experiments under controlled conditions, show that it is reproducible, and it is statistically significant. THAT is the only way things are proved. They do this because eons ago when science was young, they got suckered by a lot of things that was not properly tested but accepted and that caused a lot of problem.

There is no doubt that many shooters feel they have seen or personally experienced something but it’s all retrospective i.e. they noted it after the fact but did not set out to produce it or for that matter go back and show that it can be done over and over again. This is the difference in thinking between the average layman and someone who has been trained in the scientific field and is the reason why Brian wants someone to come out and show him the claimed effect so that it can be studied thoroughly and scientifically.

Some may think this is “high brow” talking, but let me turn this around a bit and see what people thinks. So let’s say your daughter has cancer (God forbid!) and you are now left with a tough decision as to how to treat her disease. Will you be willing to treat her with a drug that 100 people said worked in their hands but have never been tested, or would you be more comfortable with a drug that has gone through thorough scientific testing to show that it is safe and effective for that cancer. This is the difference between un-substantiated claims and scientific study.

 

[Grimstod]

Trying not to be an A-Hole here, but you keep quoting someone else and have nothing for the conversation in your own experience or words.. You must understand that many accomplished shooters (World record holders) have stated they have experienced it.. Probably one of the most honest crowds out there, with a good many stating they have experienced it..

Ray

I was once a beleiver in this theory. Even defended it rather loudly. But then I started actually shooting at longer ranges like 300 and 400+ yards. Even 1000 and i could not find any evidence of non linera dispersion except for one instance and that was corrected by adjusting scope parallax.

Bryan has done real scientific stdying on it and i havnt.

I demand evidence because no one has given any. Is that such a crime? Ray, i am not trying to persecute anyone for thinking one way or another. Just want to see the evidance. I love data and more is always what makes me happy

 

[Grimstod]

As I said in my earlier post this can be measured with reliability. You may be not able to shoot but it's still there.
Below is Dopplar data I have. I can't say where it came from or what bullets where used but there is a pattern. Does it affect accuracy? I don't believe it does because who can shoot the third decimal place.
All the data I have shows any variations in BC that aren't linear settle down by 700 yds.
Bullet @ 100 yds. 200 yds. 300yds. 400 yds. 500 yds. 600 yds. 700 yds.
#1 .332 .358 .355 .354 .354 .357 .360
#2 .372 .378 .377 .377 .378 .380 .383
#3 .325 .349 .347 .347 .347 .345 .350
#4 .283 .284 .285 .284 .287 .292 .299
#5 .290 .288 .287 .287 .287 .288 .291

"I can't say where it came from"?????


Ok i have to he a little harsh though i am trying hard not to be. When i was teaching college level classes, back in the days of grad school, if a student handed me a paper with a source they said they could not cite where it cam from, they received a letter grade reduction.

 

[jds holler]

Seems to me that for ANY projectile to achieve a smaller MOA at a thousand yards than it does at a hundred yards, would require a guidance system and some kind of in-flight control.
There you have my "simple man's" thoughts. (and no, I don't expect any applause) jd

 

[DaveTooley]

"I can't say where it came from"?????

There is another community I work in and I very much respect the trust they have put in me.

 

[dskogman]

There is another community I work in and I very much respect the trust they have put in me.

What are the units? MOA ?

 

[DaveTooley]

What are the units? MOA ?

G7 BC numbers

 

[Raythemanroe]

I think the difference here is although a lot of people feel they have experienced it, none of it has been demonstrated under laboratory conditions where things are properly controlled. This is the reason why all scientific claims are never accepted unless the person who makes the claim designed the studies, does the experiments under controlled conditions, show that it is reproducible, and it is statistically significant. THAT is the only way things are proved. They do this because eons ago when science was young, they got suckered by a lot of things that was not properly tested but accepted and that caused a lot of problem.

There is no doubt that many shooters feel they have seen or personally experienced something but it’s all retrospective i.e. they noted it after the fact but did not set out to produce it or for that matter go back and show that it can be done over and over again. This is the difference in thinking between the average layman and someone who has been trained in the scientific field and is the reason why Brian wants someone to come out and show him the claimed effect so that it can be studied thoroughly and scientifically.

Some may think this is “high brow” talking, but let me turn this around a bit and see what people thinks. So let’s say your daughter has cancer (God forbid!) and you are now left with a tough decision as to how to treat her disease. Will you be willing to treat her with a drug that 100 people said worked in their hands but have never been tested, or would you be more comfortable with a drug that has gone through thorough scientific testing to show that it is safe and effective for that cancer. This is the difference between un-substantiated claims and scientific study.

They sure do teach a lot of theory as fact in schools

Ray

 

[Raythemanroe]

Seems to me that for ANY projectile to achieve a smaller MOA at a thousand yards than it does at a hundred yards, would require a guidance system and some kind of in-flight control.
There you have my "simple man's" thoughts. (and no, I don't expect any applause) jd

Anyone watch a football spiral settle down? I have

Ray

 

[Joe Salt]

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

 

[mikecr]

Seems to me that for ANY projectile to achieve a smaller MOA at a thousand yards than it does at a hundred yards, would require a guidance system and some kind of in-flight control.

Anyone watch a football spiral settle down? I have

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.