True story of what positive compensation

[Ggmac]

Sorry if the previous post was a little to simple to be real , but time is proof . Decades of thousand yard shooting completely called out as antique .
I'm sorry if I ruffled some easily ruffled feathers , but proof is proof and to not even read or understand the how's and whys the Brits LARGEST AND BEST KNOWN companies got there reputation by COMPENSATING rifles for the exact reason stated , to have the slowest ammo and the fasted converge on the same point . It's complicated , way more than a stock that flexes . Way more .
I'm too old to dismiss our shooting history , our failure and our successes must not be learned again but passed down . To relive them is a waste , sticking your head in the sand sort of . Any hard data , or knowledge is a good thing . Observe , read , study and then proceed .
I WAS WRONG BEFORE , it's not in the Precision shooting at 1000 yds ITS in THE HIGH POWER SHOOTING PRIMER , page 185 . The quote " due to that accidental feature of the design of the action , the barrel is rising smartly at the muzzle as the bullets approach . Fast bullets exit the bore sooner than slow bullets , and so exit at a lower angle than the slow ones . Slow bullets take longer to get there and the barrel is up a bit when the bullets reach and leave the muzzle . When shooting at short ranges , say 400 yds or so , the slow bullets will hit seriously HIGHER than the fast ones .
Much much more . That article was written by Charles F Young and printed in the August 1995 PRECISION shooting magazine .
I hope this clears SOME up
I hope it helps sell some stocks !
There's a new /old thought every minute .

 

[rammac]

Not to be rude but what the heck are you talking about?

Did you post this in the wrong place by accident?

 

[Ggmac]

No , this was in response to a post that was removed . It's about Alex's design in the stock department and how it's history was proven . It's a good read about positive compensation at long range , basically barrel whip and flexing .

 

[dmoran]

......When shooting at short ranges , say 400 yds or so , the slow bullets will hit seriously HIGHER than the fast ones.

From my own results, the POI to each shot and the chronographed data from each individual shot, seriously dispute your input. And that is; repeatedly most all the higher velocity shots impact higher on the target then the slower velocity shots at 450 & 1000-yards (the two distances I do the bulk of my testing, development, confirmations, and practice at).

Edit:
My input is 100% based from scoped highpower bolt-action rifles. Can't speak to other action and/or sight platforms.

 

[rr2030]

Spot on. Same phenomena with handguns, noticeable at distances as little as 50'. I am under the impression that the time the barrel rises under recoil is less with fast bullets than slow bullets, thus the bullet leaves the barrel when its in a physically lower position. Bullet impact is lower on the target. All things being equal.

 

[Ggmac]

From my own results, the POI to each shot and the chronographed data from each individual shot, seriously dispute your input. And that is; repeatedly most all the higher velocity shots impact higher on the target then the slower velocity shots at 450 & 1000-yards (the two distances I do the bulk of my testing, development, confirmations, and practice at).

Just stating the article , not my facts and not the complete article . It's a good read .

 

[Ggmac]

From my own results, the POI to each shot and the chronographed data from each individual shot, seriously dispute your input. And that is; repeatedly most all the higher velocity shots impact higher on the target then the slower velocity shots at 450 & 1000-yards (the two distances I do the bulk of my testing, development, confirmations, and practice at).

Edit:
My input is 100% based from scoped highpower bolt-action rifles. Can't speak to other action and/or sight platforms.

 

[Ggmac]

From my own results, the POI to each shot and the chronographed data from each individual shot, seriously dispute your input. And that is; repeatedly most all the higher velocity shots impact higher on the target then the slower velocity shots at 450 & 1000-yards (the two distances I do the bulk of my testing, development, confirmations, and practice at).

Edit:
My input is 100% based from scoped highpower bolt-action rifles. Can't speak to other action and/or sight platforms.

A compensated barrel ( rifle ) done by one of the prestigious firms in Britain and shot at Bisley . It was a guarded secret but highly copied .
Compensating a rifle unprofessionally could leade to the opposite or even worse , drift .
Your findings are normal for a strong ,modern action . But what could be done with modern compensating could help a lot with ammo or fast temp changes .

 

[bennett ford]

Like most conspiracy theories, this has a basis in fact but the story has been told too many times. There was some compensation factor in the SMLE #4 target rifles of the post WWII era. The rules for international long range of those days required shooting issue ammo (I'm talking military manufacture). That stuff shot better in the rear locking SMLEs then Mauser style front locking actions. The development of custom quad and tri lock actions started as an attempt to make that xycxx shoot better. Thankfully, enlightenment has prevailed and everyone in the world shoots outstanding rifles and ammo. I'm sure that some enterprising Brit tried building an F-TR rifle on a SMLE action but we haven't heard about it so it probably didn't work.

The Brits continue tho kick butt in team events primarily because they spend as much effort in developing coaches as they do shooters

 

[Bart B.]

For a given load and rifle setup, positive compensation happens at only one range.

If a rifle is well compensating at 600 yards, it won't be at 1000. Slower bullets will strike lower than faster ones at 1000.

If a rifle is well compensating at 1000 yards, it won't be at 600. Slower bullets will strike higher than faster ones at 600.

 

[BoydAllen]

Some time ago, I had a conversation with a fellow who had come up with an adjustment to vary stock stiffness. It was set up so that it could be field adjusted by the operator, without tools. It even had an adjustment scale marked in yards.

 

[ChadCollins]

This is why smallbore shooters use “tuners”. I chrograph the Ammo before I buy a case. If it’s consistent I buy it then tune it at 50 and 100yds in each of the two rifles I have.. It’s been proven a long time in the smallbore world. Just not as critical in high power since we can handload such good Ammo and we test our loads at different distances... Maybe Benchrest are using adjustable tuners. It definitely adds another level of testing! Can be time and Ammo consuming too. Smallbore barrels last a long time. Who wants to wear out a barrel testing.

 

[Bart B.]

https://archive.org/details/philtrans05900167

Download the pdf file from the above link to learn what the British learned and proved a century ago

The following web sites are worth checking out:

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

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

https://www.varmintal.com/atune.htm

https://www.varmintal.com/alite.htm

If you believe a barrel must be pointed higher above the LOS as slower bullets leave to strike point of aim, this should be easy to understand.

Moving the tuner weight on the barrel changes the muzzle axis angle between the slowest and fastest bullets as they leave.

 

[Prose]

Where did that original thread go?! That was an outstanding thread with seriously good info in it. Did it derail after two pages or something?

 

[ttfreestyle]

Where did that original thread go?! That was an outstanding thread with seriously good info in it. Did it derail after two pages or something?

Unfortunately that is the trend now , someone posts some useful information that many are interested in then some “know it all I have to prove everyone wrong to make myself look good on the internet ” ruins it as proven yet again by that thread being removed. I have a friend that tells me targets don’t lie, so I tend to listen to the guys that are shooting small and can actually prove it in on paper and in matches, not just on the keyboard.

 

[Ggmac]

My point was to open the idea that load devopment isn't the only variable at long range .
It is possible to dampen the oscillation of these long tubes and have a very significant outcome on the target .
I already apologized to the original op of barrel compensation , the original post . We have communicated and I hope everything is ok .
When good facts are already history , I just wanted to open the discussion by quoting the article written in Precision shootings excellent ( old ) magazine .
If the results are always " faster bullets hit higher " and we have the ability to tune the slightly slower bullets to hit the same spot , we should use it . Just remember changing temps at a match , cool early , hot afternoon and even though powders are much more stable , we still have velocity spreads . Wouldn't it be nice to have the load hit the POA = POI ?

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Like most conspiracy theories, this has a basis in fact but the story has been told too many times. There was some compensation factor in the SMLE #4 target rifles of the post WWII era. The rules for international long range of those days required shooting issue ammo (I'm talking military manufacture). That stuff shot better in the rear locking SMLEs then Mauser style front locking actions. The development of custom quad and tri lock actions started as an attempt to make that xycxx shoot better. Thankfully, enlightenment has prevailed and everyone in the world shoots outstanding rifles and ammo. I'm sure that some enterprising Brit tried building an F-TR rifle on a SMLE action but we haven't heard about it so it probably didn't work.

The Brits continue tho kick butt in team events primarily because they spend as much effort in developing coaches as they do shooters

Hello Bennett, the problem with you is that you post way too much!

I love your stories.

See you at the next match.

 

[ShootDots]

Like most conspiracy theories, this has a basis in fact but the story has been told too many times. There was some compensation factor in the SMLE #4 target rifles of the post WWII era. The rules for international long range of those days required shooting issue ammo (I'm talking military manufacture). That stuff shot better in the rear locking SMLEs then Mauser style front locking actions. The development of custom quad and tri lock actions started as an attempt to make that xycxx shoot better. Thankfully, enlightenment has prevailed and everyone in the world shoots outstanding rifles and ammo. I'm sure that some enterprising Brit tried building an F-TR rifle on a SMLE action but we haven't heard about it so it probably didn't work.

The Brits continue tho kick butt in team events primarily because they spend as much effort in developing coaches as they do shooters

Hello Mr. Bennett! I have not seen you ever on this forum, nor have I seen a post! You have YEARS of shooting experience and much wisdom to impart! Don't make yourself so scarce! I shall see you at the TSRA Long Range Championship!

 

[Alex Wheeler]

There are many aspects that go into how well a rifle will compensate. If you understand what your trying to achieve and some basic physics you can change design aspects of a rifle in an attempt to make it compensate better. The design should also effect what distances the rifle would compensate best at. That post was simply results from testing one aspect of a rifle that plays a role in positive compensation. Barrel contours, center of gravity, bore height, ext. are also factors that effect how well a platform will compensate at a distance. Thats my area of interest and work. Im not theorizing on this stuff, Im spending time and money. Im no expert but Im trying to learn as much as I can. Nor am I trying to make any claim about inventing PC or being first to play with it. I have referenced all those links to people for years, but theres nothing in them about free recoil benchrest rifles. My time to spend online is limited, I'll spend it where people want to work to learn more, not argue from the armchair. Theres a stark contrast in outcome to the same post I made elsewhere.

 

[Bart B.]

Unfortunately that is the trend now , someone posts some useful information that many are interested in then some “know it all I have to prove everyone wrong to make myself look good on the internet ” ruins it as proven yet again by that thread being removed. I have a friend that tells me targets don’t lie, so I tend to listen to the guys that are shooting small and can actually prove it in on paper and in matches, not just on the keyboard.

If you're referring to me as a "know it all," you're wrong, I don't.
Prove me wrong in anything I've posted, thinking so doesn't matter.