Discussion of new book

[dcali]

Why would you have an irrational fear that your rifle won't group well at 100 if you are looking at the 100 yard groups?

The whole chapter is about how rifles might group well at distance, but not up close. Therefore, people are afraid to test up close. But as it turns out, that doesn't happen.

The fear is that you can shoot some bad groups at 100 that will shoot well at 1000, so you might skip testing at 100. It could probably use rewording, but it makes sense as is.

 

[JPeelen]

The book, like volume I, is a trove of highly valuable information. Not the endless empty rants so prevalent in firearms literature (and videos!), but plain facts based on extensive experiments (71 groups fired on group convergence, for example).
Oustanding are the explanations, which can be followed easily. Math is only used in the chapter on laser rangefinders.

The chapter on rangefinders is the only one where I miss some information: how accurate are the ranges shown by the instruments? While the maximum range information is very interesting, from experience I know the limits of my own rangefinders. But I do not know how accurate the displayed range really is. Maybe a future volume could show this information.

Thank you very much for doing the testing that made this outstanding book possible. (@whatwind?: try to do just a few of the test variations you propose. You will recognize how much work this really is.)

Disclosure: an earlier book of mine is mentioned on page 223. (Frankly, I would have preferred Bryan had cited my newer book of which he has a copy.) But my thoughts about his book remain the same.

 

[adam]

The fear is that you can shoot some bad groups at 100 that will shoot well at 1000, so you might skip testing at 100. It could probably use rewording, but it makes sense as is.

I see, that makes sense. But it should probably be rewritten to more clearly convey that.

 

[Grimstod]

Brian one thing I noticed was that you said that Lapua drills its brass flash holes instead of punching them. This is not correct. Lapua has clearly stated that they tried drilling and found it gave bad results. They only punch the flash holes. There is a link to an interview with Kevin of Lapua USA here.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/lapua-brass-flash-holes-are-not-drilled.3909786/

 

[rkittine]

With all these responses, I guess I have missed the boat in not ordering this book. I do not have Volume one, so my question is, should I order Volume I and II together or is II a revision of I.

Thanks, Bob

 

[Bryan Litz Ballistics]

Grimstod,
Thank you for that correction; I don't want to be part of the problem of spreading misinformation. I'm trying to recall now where I saw they were drilled.

Bob,
The two Modern Advancement books are totally different; not a revision or new edition, but different volumes with all different info. I do have a couple books which are in their 2nd and 3rd edition, but the old editions go out of print when a new one comes out.

-Bryan

 

[Grimstod]

Grimstod,
Thank you for that correction; I don't want to be part of the problem of spreading misinformation. I'm trying to recall now where I saw they were drilled.

Bob,
The two Modern Advancement books are totally different; not a revision or new edition, but different volumes with all different info. I do have a couple books which are in their 2nd and 3rd edition, but the old editions go out of print when a new one comes out.

-Bryan

Thanks Brian. Your fast responses are always appreciated. Its in Episode 8 of the interview. I know I have seen the drilled vs punch line come up often. Then when I listened to this podcase I had to list to it two more time. He definitely says that they do not drill them.

 

[dcali]

I've always wondered about Lapua brass, having read eveywhere that it was drilled (Norma, too seems to carry this reputation). But I've never seen any that look drilled. I've also not seen any that have the flashing/burr that the typical cheap domestic brass has (the result of the punched holes). They must do something differently, but it sure doesn't looked drilled to me.

The important part is not how the holes got there, it's the absence of the burr.

 

[Tacticaldonkey]

Really enjoyed the bullet pointing information. I had it on my short list of equiptment to purchase and use. Awesome you did that, which made my decision easier. Thank you for the knowledge.

 

[Grimstod]

This is my wish list for the next book. I would like to see you test the dreaded Doughnut and how it affects accuracy.

Good read by the way. I learned a lot and it has really changed the way I think of what affects accuracy.

 

[Fred Bohl]

Bryan,

With reference to Figure 1.6 Dispersion characterization for Benchrest shooting on page 18 and your observation on page 19 that "...mean radius of dispersion grows pretty steadily at a rate of 0.023 MOA every 100 yards." ---- and if I'm following your math, this would correspond to a circular dispersion of 0.046 MOA or R95 circular dispersion of 0.048 MOA.

Benchrest matches of the time of your data would have been dominated by Leupold Competition scopes with small numbers of March and Nightforce Benchrest models. All of these scopes would have resolution diffraction limited by their objective size. The Dawes Resolution Limit for the Leupold Competition would be 0.043 MOA which is the effective minimum aiming error circle (also the minimal limit of "aim small miss small"). This correlates remarkably well with your above observed dispersion growth and is probably the cause of that growth.

 

[rebel]

Halfway through volume 2. Really great reads Bryan! Wife said I have to many formulas in my head, haven't slept well since halfway through Vol. 1. Good stuff and very enlightening.