is it true what they say about groups...?

[M.O.A.]

I didn't say that it makes it group smaller I just said that some bolt tail bullets do take longer to stabilize .

Not that that makes groups smaller when they stable out

But you can have less deviation

[jon8777]

The .223 was an Encore barrel, so the stock, trigger and even the scope (its my sight in scope, travels to every new gun for load development).

It was a repeatable group month after month and even after the barrel had its final scope on.

[acemisser]

well FWIW I did some testing at the range a few minutes ago..My 1/2 group at 125 yards
shot into 1 inch at 250 so I would say that is pretty good proof for me..I will post a pic
if I learn how to...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The term "goes to sleep" is one hundred percent factual. You can flex your mathematical muscle all you want, but this is a fact. Boat tail bullets sometimes need time to stabilize and sometimes that can be as far out as 200 yards or further. It isn't conjecture, it is fact. It has to do with the initial pitch and yaw as the bullet leaves the barrel. Think of it like a spiraling football which is much like a boat tail bullet. How often do you get to see a football leave someone's hand with a slight wobble to it but yet... magically, it stabilizes itself in it's flight? Pretty much all the time.

Again, you can surmise your opinion all day long, but bullets "going to sleep" is a factual occurrence and it DOES result in tighter than expected groups at further distance than at closer range.

Before getting all huffy and railing against math and physics you should try rereading what you're responding to. No one said anything about late stabilization not being a real phenomenon, so you're addressing an argument that was never made. What we said is that it cannot cause a bullet to reliably "correct" it's trajectory mid-flight so that it is now directed more toward your POA. This is what would be required for late stabilization to cause superior grouping at longer distances, and the laws of physics have a few things to say about that. As kevin pointed out, these are bullets...not guided missiles.

[kevin_stevens]

Tell you what. Set up a target at 100 yds and another at 200 yds directly behind it. Shoot as many groups as you like, with a witness. I have $1000 for you if you show a 200 yd group tighter than the corresponding 100 yd.

KeS

[Stephenthesuave]

It's got nothing to do with POA. If Bryan Litz is comfortable saying that some bullets do go to sleep later and may group tighter at 200,300, etc. than at 100, then I'll take his word for it.

[Stephenthesuave]

Tighter in terms of MOA. Should have been more specific, I agree.

[kevin_stevens]

This is where the cornfusion is happening. Not TIGHTER groups... simply tighter MOA. For example... 1" at a 100yd versus 1.5" at 200yd. Bigger group, but smaller MOA.

This is why I say we need to be careful what is being said and interpreted.

I'm not confused about anything. Show me the same group at twice the distance and you're showing me 1/2 the MOA. Since i'm putting up the money, I get to pick the degree of "improvement".

But the principle still applies - forget different shots. Take ONE bullet coming out of the muzzle at an accurately zeroed target. People are saying this bullet can be off at 100 yards and somehow correct itself at 200. I don't buy it, particularly for any lateral deflection (you can play some games with trajectories, especially slow bullets at long distance, use mortars for an example).

The stabilization thing might account for a larger single bullet hole at given distance if the bullet is wobbling and then stabilizes, but that wouldn't affect the group size any more than shooting .223 vs .308 does.

KeS

[Stephenthesuave]

I'm not confused about anything. Show me the same group at twice the distance and you're showing me 1/2 the MOA. Since i'm putting up the money, I get to pick the degree of "improvement".

But the principle still applies - forget different shots. Take ONE bullet coming out of the muzzle at an accurately zeroed target. People are saying this bullet can be off at 100 yards and somehow correct itself at 200. I don't buy it, particularly for any lateral deflection (you can play some games with trajectories, especially slow bullets at long distance, use mortars for an example).

The stabilization thing might account for a larger single bullet hole at given distance if the bullet is wobbling and then stabilizes, but that wouldn't affect the group size any more than shooting .223 vs .308 does.

KeS

The bullet is not "off" and it's not "correcting itself".

The bullet is not only spinning, it's also traveling around a circle. Until the bullet "goes to sleep" it will impact at different points around that circle.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Roger that.

What are you meaning by "Correct it's trajectory"? I don't think anyone is saying that any "corrections" are being made mid-flight. Simply that the bullets are stabilizing later in flight than other bullets. Are you saying that a bullet that shoots 1" at 100yds cannot reliably shoot 1" at 200yds? Generally speaking this is what is being discussed in reference to bullets "going to sleep". Usually in regards to VLD boat tails.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Removing all variables other thant he behavior of the bullet itself, reliable groups within the same MOA at both 100 yds and 200 yds would require a trajectory correction at some point between those two distances in order to reduce the angular variance from the average trajectory. Late stabilization cannot accomplish that. That's a fact.


I think we need to be clear on what people are saying here. Obviously no one is stating that we are shooting magic guided missiles.

I'm quite clear on what people are saying here. This is the post, in its entirety, that I was responding to (bold red emphasis added by me):


lal357-

I had a .223 that would shot a progressively tighter moa group from 50 yards to about 200 yards and after 225 the group would expand in moa group size as you would predict. I never had a gun do this, after reading I found this bullet "goes to sleep". Very interesting reading on this topic.

I was not reponding to a claim of tighter groups in terms of group diameter, but of tighter "moa groups", which implies an actual narrowing of the range of trajectory deviations for a group as the bullets travel further downrange. By definition this MUST mean that the trajectories were not only altered mid-flight, but were altered in such a way that they were consistently corrected with regard to deviation from the average trajectory for the group.

But note that this would be required whether we were talking about reduction in MOA or in absolute measurements of the groups on paper. In order to reliably shoot 1" groups @ 100 yds and then 1.5" groups @ 200 yds one of two things must be occuring:


The bullets' trajectories are being influenced by something other than the bullets' own physical properties (different techniques employed by the shooter, different wind patterns at the two distances, etc)
Average variance in the the trajectories of the bullets being is magically reduced somehow between 100 and 200 yards of flight. This means mid-flight course corrections of some kind in order to bring most/all trajectories closer to the average than they were @ 100 yds.


Your explanation of late stabilization of bullets ("going to sleep") implies that phenomenon can somehow result in effect #2 above. Fact.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The bullet is not "off" and it's not "correcting itself".

The bullet is not only spinning, it's also traveling around a circle. Until the bullet "goes to sleep" it will impact at different points around that circle.

Is it your assertion that the shorter range group sizes are larger than they otherwise would be due to the tip of the projectile striking the paper off-center relative to the trajectory of the bullet?

[kevin_stevens]

You know, you can disagree about the topic all you want, but when you say "fake offer" you're calling me a liar, and you have exactly zero grounds for doing that. You're out of line.

KeS

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Brother, go do some research and report back. I'm not going to partake in proving what has already been proven. I don't shoot VLD bullets and I'm not going to work up loads in order to take you up on your fake offer. Like I said... this isn't fiction, it is fact. This is why it is generally accepted that flat-base bullets can be more accurate at short range (200yds and closer) than boat tail bullets are. (Generally)

A particular style of bullet being more accurate than another at short range is fact, to be sure. But that in no way supports your argument that late stabilization can cause a group of bullet trajectories to deviate less from the group's average at longer distances than at shorter ones.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Dude, you are over the top. Chill out. No one is calling you a liar. I might call you a little bit eccentric considering this response, but I am not calling you a liar. Do you want to duke it out in the parking lot now? Good grief. I was merely saying... uhhgg... nevermind. This is silly.

Actually, yes...you did accuse him of dishonesty.

[Blue Avenger]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/gcidso123/funny%20pic/emocons/thdoh.gif

[sharpshooter]

Evidentally neither one of you guys do any amount of long range shooting.