Bart B., for those of us buying our own ammunition vs having taxpayers foot the bill, and for those of us who don't have an E1 in the pits pulling and marking targets at 1,000 yards every shot to help with load development, we have a better chance of success with low ES numbers and a chronograph is the best way to determine ES values. By the way, isn't your 10 ring a whopping 2 moa? An F-Class 10 ring is 1 moa and the X ring is 1/2 moa. Now throw in the fact that when shooting steel targets you often get zero feedback compared to your game banging away at a 6 foot square target where you still get points for a hit in the 5 ring which is about the size of small car!
chronograph?
- Thread starter Axis II
- Start date
- Status
MCMXI,
You may be violating item 4 in the THR’s Rule’s Code of Conduct by saying to me:
Meanwhile, I’ve never tested any load for my own rifles totally at government expense. Never developed any load for government owned rifles with government bought components. I paid out of my own pocket for my personal rifle’s parts and their assembly plus all reloading components (save two bullets) and tools to assemble them for the only two long range loads I developed. Those long range loads were tested at 1000 yards on public ranges with fellow competitors all paying for the stuff used as well as the logistics from home to and back from them. For one, I was given a few hundred of government owned 26 caliber bullets to develop a load with my personal tools in my own rifle and for the other was given a couple thousand new bullets from Sierra to develop a load for it (along with a few other folks) using my own rifles plus other components and tools I paid for. All other long range loads were just copies of what others got best results with and they shot equally well across several barrels.
Way less than 5% of all competitors I’ve shot with were military servicemen and the majority shot issued ammo never testing any themselves. The other 95%+ were civilians testing loads at their own expense.
Yes, the 1000 yard 10 ring’s 2 MOA; so is the one at 600. Consider this fact:
In order for any long range prone shooter to put all 20 record shots inside that 2 MOA 10-ring with half or more inside the 1 MOA X ring, his rifle has to test its ammo well under 1 MOA for 20 shots. Most that do that shoot 1/2 to 2/3 MOA which equals what the most accurate benchrest rifles do. With the best of us slung up in prone holding somewhere inside 2/3 MOA and not shouldering our heavy recoiling rifles exactly the same for each shot, it’s very normal for a ½ MOA rifle plus ammo system to shoot 1.5 to 2.0 MOA at those ranges when conditions and shooter are as perfect as they can be.
People I’ve talked with about their record 20 shots going inside 20 inches at a thousand shot from prone all say their stuff tests about 6 to 7 inches that far away. A good friend was the first person to put 32 consecutive record shots inside the 20-inch V ring on the old 1000 yard target back in 1971; some of them were barely inside it. That 7mm Rem Mag tested 7 inches for 20 shots at 1000 by its owner shot in what’s now the F class position. Two years later, another friend put 42 consecutive shots in that V ring with .30-.338 Mag ammo that tested 6 inches at 1000; all from the same lot of ammo issued to the USMC team he was on. Same thing with my own perfect scores at that range.
You may be violating item 4 in the THR’s Rule’s Code of Conduct by saying to me:
I’ll let the moderators decide. I think you’re attacking me (the arguer) and where the finances come from to pay for what's used, not the argument of whether or not a chronograph’s needed for load development. I don't think it matters who pays the bills for stuff used or operates the facility where they're tested.
Meanwhile, I’ve never tested any load for my own rifles totally at government expense. Never developed any load for government owned rifles with government bought components. I paid out of my own pocket for my personal rifle’s parts and their assembly plus all reloading components (save two bullets) and tools to assemble them for the only two long range loads I developed. Those long range loads were tested at 1000 yards on public ranges with fellow competitors all paying for the stuff used as well as the logistics from home to and back from them. For one, I was given a few hundred of government owned 26 caliber bullets to develop a load with my personal tools in my own rifle and for the other was given a couple thousand new bullets from Sierra to develop a load for it (along with a few other folks) using my own rifles plus other components and tools I paid for. All other long range loads were just copies of what others got best results with and they shot equally well across several barrels.
Way less than 5% of all competitors I’ve shot with were military servicemen and the majority shot issued ammo never testing any themselves. The other 95%+ were civilians testing loads at their own expense.
Yes, the 1000 yard 10 ring’s 2 MOA; so is the one at 600. Consider this fact:
In order for any long range prone shooter to put all 20 record shots inside that 2 MOA 10-ring with half or more inside the 1 MOA X ring, his rifle has to test its ammo well under 1 MOA for 20 shots. Most that do that shoot 1/2 to 2/3 MOA which equals what the most accurate benchrest rifles do. With the best of us slung up in prone holding somewhere inside 2/3 MOA and not shouldering our heavy recoiling rifles exactly the same for each shot, it’s very normal for a ½ MOA rifle plus ammo system to shoot 1.5 to 2.0 MOA at those ranges when conditions and shooter are as perfect as they can be.
People I’ve talked with about their record 20 shots going inside 20 inches at a thousand shot from prone all say their stuff tests about 6 to 7 inches that far away. A good friend was the first person to put 32 consecutive record shots inside the 20-inch V ring on the old 1000 yard target back in 1971; some of them were barely inside it. That 7mm Rem Mag tested 7 inches for 20 shots at 1000 by its owner shot in what’s now the F class position. Two years later, another friend put 42 consecutive shots in that V ring with .30-.338 Mag ammo that tested 6 inches at 1000; all from the same lot of ammo issued to the USMC team he was on. Same thing with my own perfect scores at that range.
Last edited:
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
For me at least, I don't really care, and neither do the deer I shoot, so the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
And my ammo is bought with "taxpayer dollars" too. I'm a taxpayer, and I bought my ammo.
I think his point was that chasing load development can get prohibitively expensive if you're having to buy all the components yourself. I know I feel this way, which is another reason I don't really care why the higher SD strings sometimes produce better groups. I'm not going to spend the money to find out.
There are many factors to consider here. You're trying to make the point that you never used a chronograph but had good success indicating that success can be had at long distance without one. Well ... duh! However, you're being disingenuous as usual. Of course anyone can shoot at a 6 foot square white board and then spend the time to walk out to the target every few shots to evaluate load performance. Also, throwing lead downrange when you're not paying for it is an easy way to work up a load. However, for many of us this isn't an option since we pay for our components, don't have a place to shoot 1,000 yards, don't have someone to give near instant feedback on load performance and are shooting at much smaller targets that give ZERO feedback with a miss. A 1/2" group at 1000 yards doesn't mean much if it's off the steel gong. My final point that I made earlier is that your chance of success at long range (particularly when you don't have the chance to test the load at long range prior to a match or similar) is much greater with low ES numbers.
One final thought: Rifles, sights, ammunition, bullets, powders, brass, chronographs, shooting matches, shooters etc. have come a long way since you were shooting your matches. The F-Class target had to be changed because it was too easy to clean the target that you were shooting at in service rifle. The level of accuracy/precision required in civilian matches such as those in the PRS far exceed anything required of the military.
Last edited:
Yes, rifles, sights, ammunition, bullets, powders, brass, chronographs, shooting matches, shooters etc. have come a long way over the last few decades. But the best accuracy they have has not changed. The best bullets today shoot no more accurate than the best ones made 50 years ago; there's just more of them. The most accurate benchrest rifles and ammo today at short range keep all shots somewhere inside about 3/10ths to 4/10ths inch at 100 yards
People were shooting half MOA test groups with several shots at 1000 yards back in the 1960's and 1970's. The NRA had to downsize their high power match rifle targets' scoring rings in 1966 because the new cartridge used a few years prior to that broke all the records and too many unbreakable ties were shot. That's the one that was first used in F class matches before it got downsized again.
And at 600 yards, the same thing. One guy tested his .308 with a couple dozen 10-shot groups all under 1.5 inches. He kept 60 shots inside 12 inches at 600 yards shooting that load prone in the Nationals.
Why the higher SD strings sometimes produce better groups is rather easy to figure out. For example, a .308 Win has a vertical shot stringing at 1000 yards for a 100 fps spread in muzzle velocity of about 40 inches (4 MOA); all bullet and atmospheric variables at zero. So, a 20 fps spread in fps should have about 8 inches of vertical shot stringing. If there's not vertical shot stringing and they all are in the same vertical plane, what will make that happen to compensate for their difference in drop?
I had no problems shooting other people's loads into 1/2 to 2/3 MOA 20-shot test groups at long range across different barrels.
People were shooting half MOA test groups with several shots at 1000 yards back in the 1960's and 1970's. The NRA had to downsize their high power match rifle targets' scoring rings in 1966 because the new cartridge used a few years prior to that broke all the records and too many unbreakable ties were shot. That's the one that was first used in F class matches before it got downsized again.
And at 600 yards, the same thing. One guy tested his .308 with a couple dozen 10-shot groups all under 1.5 inches. He kept 60 shots inside 12 inches at 600 yards shooting that load prone in the Nationals.
Why the higher SD strings sometimes produce better groups is rather easy to figure out. For example, a .308 Win has a vertical shot stringing at 1000 yards for a 100 fps spread in muzzle velocity of about 40 inches (4 MOA); all bullet and atmospheric variables at zero. So, a 20 fps spread in fps should have about 8 inches of vertical shot stringing. If there's not vertical shot stringing and they all are in the same vertical plane, what will make that happen to compensate for their difference in drop?
I had no problems shooting other people's loads into 1/2 to 2/3 MOA 20-shot test groups at long range across different barrels.
Last edited:
spitballer
Member
Gentlemen, please... this is a family show, let's keep it on subject. Communist dictatorships vs Banana Republics has little to do with the art of reloading.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Bart, I have a question. I have seen you state this before nd tend to question it:
Why and don't start with newton's third law of physics because while that pertains to FRE (Free Recoil Energy) there is no factoring in what the rifle is recoiling into. If I lay the rifle on a bench and fire it or place it in my shoulder and fire it the FRE is the same and looking at newton's law shouldn't the muzzle velocity be the same?
According to SAAMI:
Satisfying my curiosity is on this summer's list of fun and entertaining experiments at the range as soon as warmer weather moves in. With age I have become a fair weather shooter. Anyway, when I have shot over the chronograph I have never noticed that much deviation between how the rifle is or is not supported. I figure that the bullet is going one way and the rifle is recoiling in the opposite direction. The FRE will be whatever it is based on the formula. The calculation makes no allowance as to how the rifle is supported. So mathematically how does this work out as you stated it? I am not saying your view is incorrect I just want to know how you derive it.
Ron
Why and don't start with newton's third law of physics because while that pertains to FRE (Free Recoil Energy) there is no factoring in what the rifle is recoiling into. If I lay the rifle on a bench and fire it or place it in my shoulder and fire it the FRE is the same and looking at newton's law shouldn't the muzzle velocity be the same?
According to SAAMI:
Satisfying my curiosity is on this summer's list of fun and entertaining experiments at the range as soon as warmer weather moves in. With age I have become a fair weather shooter. Anyway, when I have shot over the chronograph I have never noticed that much deviation between how the rifle is or is not supported. I figure that the bullet is going one way and the rifle is recoiling in the opposite direction. The FRE will be whatever it is based on the formula. The calculation makes no allowance as to how the rifle is supported. So mathematically how does this work out as you stated it? I am not saying your view is incorrect I just want to know how you derive it.
Ron
Reloadron, regarding my claim,
Read post 23 in:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=797494&highlight=free+recoil
I've asked hundreds of people to do that test Metal God did but he's the only one I know of that did it.
I guess I'll have to make a "velocity test platform" then bolt a barreled action to it, photograph it to show the world how a cheap and very precise way to measure muzzle velocity numbers very precisely to single digit numbers with near 100% statistical confidence. Lousy for accuracy, but once a good load with great velocity numbers is developed, then test it for accuracy.
Read post 23 in:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=797494&highlight=free+recoil
I've asked hundreds of people to do that test Metal God did but he's the only one I know of that did it.
I guess I'll have to make a "velocity test platform" then bolt a barreled action to it, photograph it to show the world how a cheap and very precise way to measure muzzle velocity numbers very precisely to single digit numbers with near 100% statistical confidence. Lousy for accuracy, but once a good load with great velocity numbers is developed, then test it for accuracy.
Chamber pressure is not effected. It's the rate (fps) the barrel moves backwards while the bullet goes through it over time. Just like a B-17 bomber tail gunner's 50 caliber bullets leaving their fixed mounted straight back pointing barrels at a relative speed of 2900 fps but the barrels are moving forward at 300 fps (~203 mph). The bullets' speed over ground is only 2600 fps.
Our rifles behave the same way on a smaller scale. Our barrels are moving backwards when the bullets leave; more so in free recoil but less when hand held against us. Unless we hard mount them fixed in place so they don't move at all.
Conduct your own tests like Metal God did.
Then you may learn your upper body mass adds to the rifle's mass so there's more resistance to the barrel's backward recoil during barrel time. Those bullets leave faster than bullets leave from free recoiling rifles.
Newton's Laws apply and the recoiling mass includes both rifle and shooter weights combined. The shooter weight is hard to define but it's there. A barrel in an action bolted to a fixed concrete stand won't recoil at all and it'll shoot a given load's bullet the fastest and have the smallest ES and SD.
Our rifles behave the same way on a smaller scale. Our barrels are moving backwards when the bullets leave; more so in free recoil but less when hand held against us. Unless we hard mount them fixed in place so they don't move at all.
Conduct your own tests like Metal God did.
Then you may learn your upper body mass adds to the rifle's mass so there's more resistance to the barrel's backward recoil during barrel time. Those bullets leave faster than bullets leave from free recoiling rifles.
Newton's Laws apply and the recoiling mass includes both rifle and shooter weights combined. The shooter weight is hard to define but it's there. A barrel in an action bolted to a fixed concrete stand won't recoil at all and it'll shoot a given load's bullet the fastest and have the smallest ES and SD.
Last edited:
Reloadron
Contributing Member
I will have to experiment with this come some nice weather. Thanks for the input. I had given thought to a rifle fired from a vehicle traveling forward 60 MPH but did not do the math. Never gave much thought to aircraft.
Thanks
Ron
Shoot at least 20 shots per test. 5 ain't enough to get meaningful results.
My own test shooting a 12 pound 308 Win with 165's showed a 35 fps higher velocity held hard as possible to my shoulder compared to very light pressure. Never tested it in free recoil. Same stuff shot bullets about 10 to 15 fps faster from prone than standing.
My own test shooting a 12 pound 308 Win with 165's showed a 35 fps higher velocity held hard as possible to my shoulder compared to very light pressure. Never tested it in free recoil. Same stuff shot bullets about 10 to 15 fps faster from prone than standing.
Metal God's data is a five shot string, not something I view as conclusive, nor have you provided data supporting this theory of yours. I have been shooting over a chronograph since I first bought one, which would have been back in the late 80's, early nineties. I have shot tens of thousands of rounds over my chronograph and I have not seen velocity varying by how tight or loose I hold my firearms.
If anything is affected by recoil, most certainly a handgun would be. and just this week, I was shooting over a chronograph with a M1911. Sometimes one handed, sometimes two handed. I have not seen anything to verify your theory and since this is an extraordinary claim, you need to show some extraordinary proof.
As for chronograph use, I think you Bart Button, were a very active shooter, but not anymore. I am an active competitor, shoot with active competitor's, a couple of whom are F Class National Champions, one sling shooter on the US Shooting Team, I think also the Palma Team. Last weekend I was shooting with my Palma friend and he is very aware of the velocity of his bullets and the speed at which his and his bud's 155's are going. This is a very important data point to all those using the 155's. My F Class National Champ bud, who has won F TR and F Open, I occasionally meet him at the range testing over a chronograph. My friend has set National Records, unlike your almost National record in Smallbore Prone. This is something you regularly trot out to impress those who, presumably, are impressed by someone who was almost famous by almost setting a National Record. My bud is a extreme experimenter, I have held his data books where he has tested primer/case/bullet/powder combinations for velocity, accuracy and consistency. Maybe that is why he is a multiple National Champ and you on the web telling all how you were almost famous.
Last edited:
I like chronographing my loads and getting the information but I've never put lots of stock in low extreme spread or low standard deviation are needed for an accurate load.
The discussion above confirms that there is lots of varibilty induced in the "shooting system" by how the shooter holds his rifle. I have thought this might be the case because of the results I get at times. Same load, same rifle, different days yielding different accuracy results. At those times, I figured my shooting may been a major cause of the varibility. Aldo, my strings tend to be small which which increases the statistical insignificance.
It would be interesting to see velocity, extreme spread, and standard deviation results from a barreled action attached to an immovable object.
The discussion above confirms that there is lots of varibilty induced in the "shooting system" by how the shooter holds his rifle. I have thought this might be the case because of the results I get at times. Same load, same rifle, different days yielding different accuracy results. At those times, I figured my shooting may been a major cause of the varibility. Aldo, my strings tend to be small which which increases the statistical insignificance.
It would be interesting to see velocity, extreme spread, and standard deviation results from a barreled action attached to an immovable object.
Toprudder
Member
Very interesting discussion about the barrel moving back when firing. Would that not also mean that the bullet is in the barrel for less time? How much does the barrel actually move before the bullet has left the barrel?
A ransom rest for a pistol would be close. It would be rigid compared to a human hand. The shot count would have to be in the 40 to 50 shot range, better would be something in the hundreds, to remove the 1 in one hundred pressure events that occur with pressure variations.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Bart, I have every intent of running the test, just as I mentioned. When I was in my 20s and 30s a snow covered range was fine with me. However, at 66 I have become a fair weather outdoors shooter. Soon as the range dries out (I also hate deep mud) and we get some nice weather I will do some experiments and see what I get. Working up a holding fixture is the least of my concerns. I just prefer 60 degree weather and sunshine would be a nice touch. When I look at velocity I generally shoot 20 rounds with 10 being the least and only 10 when I am about done.
Ron
Ron
Your round count will have to be high enough to eliminate chance. If you examine your standard deviations and extreme spreads, and we will all assume that velocity follows a Normal distribution, you have to show that the data set and conclusions are beyond random chance.
I am curious on how Bart Button would establish a sample size with a 90% confidence limit:
Slamfire,
Your belittling tirade on my marksmanship skills are meaningless and a waste of time. I know others have shot better scores than me. I'll ignore your slamming my last name.
Does it matter that my stuff shot as accurate in tests equal or better than what national champions stuff does? This is an equipment issue, not about marksmanship.
I now think I don't have enough credibility in your mind for any ammo test sample size suggestion having any statistical significance. Go ask someone you have faith in. For example, your Palma friend, then trust his answer only if his Palma and other ammo tests this well or better at 800 and 1000 yards.
Or ignore those sub half-MOA groups because I didn't use a chronograph developing them. I don't know what their average velocity is nore ES or SD numbers; don't care, either, as a close guess is good enough for me. Just used what others shooting better scores than I used.
Your belittling tirade on my marksmanship skills are meaningless and a waste of time. I know others have shot better scores than me. I'll ignore your slamming my last name.
Does it matter that my stuff shot as accurate in tests equal or better than what national champions stuff does? This is an equipment issue, not about marksmanship.
I now think I don't have enough credibility in your mind for any ammo test sample size suggestion having any statistical significance. Go ask someone you have faith in. For example, your Palma friend, then trust his answer only if his Palma and other ammo tests this well or better at 800 and 1000 yards.
Or ignore those sub half-MOA groups because I didn't use a chronograph developing them. I don't know what their average velocity is nore ES or SD numbers; don't care, either, as a close guess is good enough for me. Just used what others shooting better scores than I used.
Last edited:
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Round count should not be an issue, I should have 100to 200 identical brass. I will chronograph .308 Winchester, They will all be the same brass, likely WCC 08. I will load at least 100 rounds as identical as I can get. AA 2495 powder, 41.0 gn. CCI BR2 primers and Sierra 168 gn HPBT bullets. Several rifles to choose from but likely a Remington 700 VSSF I trued years ago over a M1A or AR 10.
I'll shoot half the rounds (20 round groups) in a holding fixture like a lead sled and the remaining half in a Wichita Rest to support the forend, Protektor Small Owl Ear Bag front and a bunny bag on the rear of the stock.
As to the data? I have an Oehler 35P Chronograph so I will just transcribe the printed data to an Excel Spread Sheet.
Worst case I'll load 100 rounds. I have 50 of the WCC brass and should have 50 more. I may have a full 200 but if not I should have 100 and want to keep things as close as possible so the loads are uniform. Shooting 50 and 50 should be enough to see what I want to see. So that is my plan as soon as decent days get here.
Ron
Round count is an issue any time there's variables in all their parts. While bullets and cases can be made with tiny tolerances, 'tain't so with primers, powders. Then there's round assembly variables; neck tension/griip (release force), specifically.
Shooting ammo's the same as shooting craps except their's several pairs of dice involved when shooting. Each pair represents each of the variables that cause bullets to not have identical exterior ballistics.
Shooting ammo's the same as shooting craps except their's several pairs of dice involved when shooting. Each pair represents each of the variables that cause bullets to not have identical exterior ballistics.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
I believe anyone knows you need a high enough round count to get good numbers. Really? My question is do you think 100 rounds is enough to get useful results? Say 50 from a lead sled with the rifle anchored down and 50 off a rest as I described above. I am well aware of the variables which is why I spelled things out, including the brass and primers. Spare the condescending BS as we are not village idiots. Will 100 rounds be adequate as I described? This is a yes or no. When I stated round count was not an issue I was saying I can load as many as needed to get good results. I thought that covered it well.
Ron
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Then I will run groups of 50. Thus far I have 100 pieces of brass in the works. This should prove entertaining. I will provide all he data and likely dump all the velocity dope into a spread sheet. Maybe I'll invest in a lead sled just for the occasion. Give me several days to get this together.
Ron
Ron
I apologize for the incorrect spelling of your last name. I rechecked and found that your last name is Bobbitt. Somehow the name Button stuck in my mind. I can see that the correct attribution is important to you as this post of yours shows:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.guns/iL7zv-cktJc/Uow_LL-o2dwJ
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
