Definition of an unfamiliar term?

[Mulligan]

I will take a stab at this.
Many long range BR and f-class shooter will tell you that you need to do load development at distance. This is because, they have proven to themselves if not others, the load that shoots small up close likely will not be the load that is small and round at distance.

I expect it is a function of several things. One of them being, the bullet goes from idle to engraved, and moving 3k feet a second spinning around its circumference only to be released and forced to spin around its center of mass...........
Now I admit, I am but a humble firefighter and not a physicist. However I could see how it could take a bit to get the wobbles out.
CW

 

[Zero333]

I will take a stab at this.
Many long range BR and f-class shooter will tell you that you need to do load development at distance. This is because, they have proven to themselves if not others, the load that shoots small up close likely will not be the load that is small and round at distance.

I expect it is a function of several things. One of them being, the bullet goes from idle to engraved, and moving 3k feet a second spinning around its circumference only to be released and forced to spin around its center of mass...........
Now I admit, I am but a humble firefighter and not a physicist. However I could see how it could take a bit to get the wobbles out.
CW

So if I throw a football and it wobbles at the start, it will straighten over some distance ???

I think this is how we should be looking at it. It's that simple.

Bullets going to sleep are a fictitious myth.

If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any proof. Yet.

 

[BoydAllen]

neither have we seen any proof that it does not happen... One need not prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to be a useful theory. Some things may be difficult to prove with the resources available, yet we may still have working theories which may be kept until they are conclusively disproven, which is an entirely different thing than not being proven. Of course we all get to make those judgements for ourselves.

 

[USMCDOC]

So if I crush up some sleeping pills and put some of them in with the powder, will my bullets come out of the muzzle already asleep instead of having to wait a few hundred yards before they get tired and need a nap ???

No.. your supposed to coat them

 

[Immike]

So if I throw a football and it wobbles at the start, it will straighten over some distance ???

I think this is how we should be looking at it. It's that simple.

Bullets going to sleep are a fictitious myth.

If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any proof. Yet.

Not sure a football has enough spin to correct itself... The only evidence I have seen is in black powder cartridge flight. This "top theory" comes from back then and may be the only projectiles that it can be visable in. I believe the 45-70 has shown evidence of improvement from 100 - 200 -300yds. Harold Vaughn was a artillery engineer so bigger may be the only way to see this.

 

[dkhunt14]

That’s interesting. Did anyone claiming this take up Litz’ challenge?

I tend to be with him on this, and do not believe this theory.

I have seen slow motion video where bullets were pitching and yawing. Even the short little bullets the PPC guys use.

I also believe that if you shoot a bullet through any kind of paper. It will interfere with the wash and air flow. This is what tends to stabilize the bullet. Videos show the air on the bullet.Therefore i believe the shoot through will not work. Matt

 

[dkhunt14]

Not sure a football has enough spin to correct itself... The only evidence I have seen is in black powder cartridge flight. This "top theory" comes from back then and may be the only projectiles that it can be visable in. I believe the 45-70 has shown evidence of improvement from 100 - 200 -300yds. Harold Vaughn was a artillery engineer so bigger may be the only way to see this.

The only time it seems to show up is with a big boomer. The holes on the target tell the story. You can sometimes tell tune by looking at the holes. Small and round is always better. They can actually be measured. If the target backer is straight, oblong holes tell a lot. Some of the best 1000 yard shooters watch this to help tune. I examine all my targets. Matt

 

[dkhunt14]

The old school benchrest use of the word jam refers to the maximum length that a bullet can be seated without being pushed back into the case as the round is chambered, this at the neck tension (difference between loaded and unloaded sized case neck diameters) that the shooter intends to actually use for rounds that he will be shooting.

Typically shooters will seat a bullet long and chamber the round measuring the round before and after to be sure that the bullet was pushed back after chambering. The seating depth that it is pushed back to would be jam.

Someone would say that his bullets are seated some distance off of jam, or at jam.

This becomes less useful when seating off the lands. In that case, one might want to first determine at what length one's bullet is just touching the rifling, and then make the appropriate adjustment from there, although I have known one shooter to say that he tried twenty (.020") off jam, which I would guess would be a slight amount of jump.

Short range benchrest group shooters load between individual matches of which there are typically ten a day, adjusting their loads based on how they performed in the previous match and what they guess changes in temperature and perhaps humidity through the day will do to their rifles' tune.

It is not so much that I object to people using language for their own purposes but rather that this medium does not lend itself to the maintenance of standard definitions because there is literally no place to look this stuff up.

One last thought, shooting top level equipment (suitable for competition) will ruin your appreciation for anything less. Equipment is huge. You are undoubtedly a much better shot than you realize, and will only fully appreciate your potential when someone sits you down behind a fully tuned benchrest rifle, at which point you will amaze yourself with how good you are. I have literally cost people thousands of dollars because I let them shoot such a rifle (and that only a mid pack runner), with loads that were fully in tune, over a set of flags, on a day when the wind was mild. Beware.

I prefer to call it touch and in or off the lands. It just seems to me to be a better way of explaining it. I agree with what you said about jam. Matt

 

[jimmymac]

The old school benchrest use of the word jam refers to the maximum length that a bullet can be seated without being pushed back into the case as the round is chambered, this at the neck tension (difference between loaded and unloaded sized case neck diameters) that the shooter intends to actually use for rounds that he will be shooting.

This is the definition as I know it as well and the process I use to find it. I believe many people do not quite understand this and they have their own definition which further complicates matters on internet forums.

 

[STS]

Honestly the easiest way to test for it would be put a sheet of paper up at 10 yards and fire the gun... if the bullet is yawing any at all you should see an oblog shape on the paper.

And multiply that times many hundreds of targets and that's exactly what I have 'done'. I've not performed the experiment as you describe but have seen the results of your experiment hundreds of times over. I shot BR for several years and eventually my career demands became incompatible with that hobby. That said, I still have many friends that compete and I still serve as the measurer on occasion for a 100, 200, 300 Heavy Varmint one day aggregate. When you look at hundreds of targets through magnification over the years it's surprisingly easy to tell if a particular rifles bullets are stable when they pass through the target. The holes are not round when they aren't stable. It's as obvious as can be.
I have watched particular competitors rifles shoot oblong holes from bullets that are not fully stabilized at 100 and 200 yards but by the time the 300 yard targets come in for scoring those same rifles are shooting perfectly round holes. I know most of the shooters and have asked if they made any changes in their load and most have said no. It seems pretty obvious to me that those bullets fully stabilized (went to sleep if you wish to call it that) between 200 and 300 yards. It took me a couple of matches to make this observation buy it's VERY predictable once you recognize it. Food for thought.

 

[chkunz]

So if I crush up some sleeping pills and put some of them in with the powder, will my bullets come out of the muzzle already asleep instead of having to wait a few hundred yards before they get tired and need a nap ???

When I first started shooting I thought I had witnessed this phenomenon of bullets going to sleep at longer ranges.
I just wanted it to be true to blame something on my own inability to shoot consistently small groups at all ranges. And in reality I just picked and chose which groups to compare.
I was young and stupid and not honest.
Now I'm less young, less stupid and more honest.

This is a relatively short range phenenom and it is real. It may be imp

Honestly the easiest way to test for it would be put a sheet of paper up at 10 yards and fire the gun... if the bullet is yawing any at all you should see an oblog shape on the paper.

This is what Dr Mann did as reported in his book. He put the witness paper at several locations along his 100 yard range.

 

[BoydAllen]

Here is a data point that I have personally experienced. Some time back, I was testing a new powder in my 6PPC and screwed up my measure setting so that the starting point of my pressure series (one shot each load on the same target, intervals of .3 gr.) and started much lower than I had intended. The first few shots produced holes that looked more like .22 caliber holes and then as the charge weights rose, at some point the bullet holes started looking normal. It was as if the lower RPMs of the slower shots had resulted in the shots hitting the paper perfectly point on. I have read where others have seen this as well.

 

[BenPerfected]

Here is a data point that I have personally experienced. Some time back, I was testing a new powder in my 6PPC and screwed up my measure setting so that the starting point of my pressure series (one shot each load on the same target, intervals of .3 gr.) and started much lower than I had intended. The first few shots produced holes that looked more like .22 caliber holes and then as the charge weights rose, at some point the bullet holes started looking normal. It was as if the lower RPMs of the slower shots had resulted in the shots hitting the paper perfectly point on. I have read where others have seen this as well.

Boyd,
On that day, did the lighter loads with the more stable bullets group better than your “normal” load? What are your thoughts on bullets stabilizing at longer distances? My experience on a calm day shooting at 500 yds slows a measurable change in group size with only a very slight changes on the barrel tuner.
Ben

 

[Stan Taylor]

I just put five of them 108 gr Berger 6mm bullets to sleep prior to loading them about to see how it works.

 

[Stan Taylor]

I will take a stab at this.
Many long range BR and f-class shooter will tell you that you need to do load development at distance. This is because, they have proven to themselves if not others, the load that shoots small up close likely will not be the load that is small and round at distance.

I expect it is a function of several things. One of them being, the bullet goes from idle to engraved, and moving 3k feet a second spinning around its circumference only to be released and forced to spin around its center of mass...........
Now I admit, I am but a humble firefighter and not a physicist. However I could see how it could take a bit to get the wobbles out.
CW

Sir you hit it pretty much on the head whatever distance you shoot is where they need to be a sleep or the most stable.

 

[BoydAllen]

Boyd,
On that day, did the lighter loads with the more stable bullets group better than your “normal” load? What are your thoughts on bullets stabilizing at longer distances? My experience on a calm day shooting at 500 yds slows a measurable change in group size with only a very slight changes on the barrel tuner.
Ben

I do not know how they would have grouped since I was not interested in that low of a velocity but was down there by mistake. It might be interesting to go back and do a test. The shots that made smaller holes were all on a horizontal line and then the next shot jumped up quite a bit (paper gap) and its hole was more normal. It was almost like at the low pressure the barrel was not reacting to the pressure of firing. I think that we all tend to think that if we had just a little more velocity (or a lot) and a higher BC that all would be well in the world....but I have seen evidence that at least at 100 yards neither are all that important. Accuracy trumps everything. One thing about long distance is that it usually involves the use of longer barrels than short range and based on Varmint Al's "stuff" I believe that barrels of those lengths provide positive compensation without a tuner. That being said, perhaps short range tuners are a lot heavier than what is needed for long barreled rifles. For those perhaps something very light would be more appropriate, but of course that is just a semi-ignorant guess.

 

[Stan Taylor]

I do not know how they would have grouped since I was not interested in that low of a velocity but was down there by mistake. It might be interesting to go back and do a test. The shots that made smaller holes were all on a horizontal line and then the next shot jumped up quite a bit (paper gap) and its hole was more normal. It was almost like at the low pressure the barrel was not reacting to the pressure of firing. I think that we all tend to think that if we had just a little more velocity (or a lot) and a higher BC that all would be well in the world....but I have seen evidence that at least at 100 yards neither are all that important. Accuracy trumps everything. One thing about long distance is that it usually involves the use of longer barrels than short range and based on Varmint Al's "stuff" I believe that barrels of those lengths provide positive compensation without a tuner. That being said, perhaps short range tuners are a lot heavier than what is needed for long barreled rifles. For those perhaps something very light would be more appropriate, but of course that is just a semi-ignorant guess.

Boyd you made a very good point in your post accuracy whether it is short range or at distance such as 600yd an 1000yd the wind conditions are harder to make the right call you win based on score or group a good sleeping bullet helps on game day accuracy trumps all no matter what distance it is.

 

[BenPerfected]

Boyd,
My plan is to set up a 200 & 500 yd target inline and see what happens. To start, I will use 1” foam board as a backer w/small stick on targets as hold points. The holes in the foam board should show up nicely when the bullets are colored with Sharpie markers. On the right calm day shooting 3 shot groups, we should be able to get stability & group results on both targets.
This won’t work? It’s all about the hunt
Ben

 

[JohnKielly]

Topwater,

At another level, going to sleep is the condition that occurs when you ask a question and get response from 27 people quoting 42 conflicting sources and 35 anecdotes.

John

 

[kneedtospeed]

I just put five of them 108 gr Berger 6mm bullets to sleep prior to loading them about to see how it works.

Good Night, my little Soldiers
Sweet dreams, until 300 yards...

Don't Question Stanleys Metal, or Wood work.

This Man could put a wheel weight, in the X Ring, at 1000 yds.
Repeatedly