# Interesting With 30-06 - Are You Thinking What I am Thinking



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

I was doing more load work to day and had about four beginning loads to check out using the 150gr GS HV in my 30-06. I think I am getting closer with the E-Tip being a good load.

Well when I got to my fourth three shot load for the GS HV the accuracy was ok and velocities nothing special for a 150gr bullet in a 30-06 but look at the chrony and then the target.














































Group size .736 









Now I don't know about you all but that group and those readings say to me that this is a long range load for sure with such a small Average Deviation and Standard Deviation. Of course I won't know for sure until I test it a 400yds.

What is your take on the above?????

I had a seating depth of 3.230" but I am thinking of coming up to 3.240" because my feeling is that I am just a little to deep. I weighed every bullet and used those that weighed EXACTLY the same, my brass was 2.484" and I made sure everyone was the EXACT same length. I squared my primer pockets and de-burred the necks, also measuring the neck to make sure thickness was the same. I trickled my compressed load slowly into the case so my powder would stack in a more uniform way.

This is an excellent velocity deviation. I will shoot it first at 200 yards and see if the group tightens; The GS HV bullets may not yet be asleep. Some projectiles take longer than others to go to sleep and this could be the case with these; the group could actually tighten up at longer distances.

I have this feeling that they will tighten up somewhere out there and fly true for a long ways. I will test them soon.


----------



## StretchNM (Dec 22, 2008)

Beartooth,
Since I'm getting into reloading, I'd like to hear what primer, powder, and powder amount you're using to get that group!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

What does it mean for the bullets to be asleep? Since I too am a rookie reloader can you explain why the SD and AD and the group make for a good long range load? Since I don't know exactly what I should be looking for, I would say that group is average at best for 100yds. Please explain. Thanks!!!

I would love to get into handloading and shooting as much as you are. Always looking to learn new stuff!!!


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

Did you fire any additional groups with that load? What you are showing is quite nice. I would do more shooting with that load at 100 before anything else, like a series of five and ten shot groups.
And...what was the load? 150 grain bullet (might make a nice Palma Match load) and ........
powder, primer?
Pete


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

StretchNM said:


> Beartooth,
> Since I'm getting into reloading, I'd like to hear what primer, powder, and powder amount you're using to get that group!


The primer was a Fed 210, powder was a compressed load of IMR4350


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

laite319 said:


> What does it mean for the bullets to be asleep? Since I too am a rookie reloader can you explain why the SD and AD and the group make for a good long range load? Since I don't know exactly what I should be looking for, I would say that group is average at best for 100yds. Please explain. Thanks!!!
> 
> I would love to get into handloading and shooting as much as you are. Always looking to learn new stuff!!!


First at 100yds this is a 3/4" group and is even below average for what is acceptable to me and I will be working on this load. Sometimes a bullet will not actually settle down until it has gone 200 or so yards and finally stabilize in flight. The low deviation many times but not all the time ends up producing tight groups at 300-500yds or more even though at times they are not real tight at 100yds. I have had some groups that were under a 1/3" at 100yds and were very poor groupers out past 300yds.

What I meant by the bullet going to sleep is that it is no longer wobbling on it's axes but has settle down and is perfectly rotating around it axes.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

darkgael said:


> Did you fire any additional groups with that load? What you are showing is quite nice. I would do more shooting with that load at 100 before anything else, like a series of five and ten shot groups.
> And...what was the load? 150 grain bullet (might make a nice Palma Match load) and ........
> powder, primer?
> Pete


I am not satisfied with the group but I am with the low deviation. I will be changing brass type and also powder along with seating depth as I do more work with this bullet. I was only showing the low deviation which is a result of working hard at the reloading bench to get everything consistent. You are right about it needing more work.


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

> am not satisfied with the group but I am with the low deviation. I will be changing brass type and also powder along with seating depth as I do more work with this bullet. I was only showing the low deviation which is a result of working hard at the reloading bench to get everything consistent. You are right about it needing more work.


And....if you are not averse to sharing.....what was the brass, primer and powder (type and charge weight) for this load? The low SD is worth following up, perhaps with another gun.
Pete


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Thanks for the reply, Beartooth!

I have never heard any thing about the sleeping bullets. Very interesting. So do you just use the 100yd line as a kind of test run for all your loads? 
What distance do you feel is kind of the "gold standard" for loads? I have a 300yd range close by, but most of my shooting is at a 100yd range. I am wondering if maybe I need to head some where else to find if my loads are really performing well.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

darkgael said:


> > am not satisfied with the group but I am with the low deviation. I will be changing brass type and also powder along with seating depth as I do more work with this bullet. I was only showing the low deviation which is a result of working hard at the reloading bench to get everything consistent. You are right about it needing more work.
> 
> 
> And....if you are not averse to sharing.....what was the brass, primer and powder (type and charge weight) for this load? The low SD is worth following up, perhaps with another gun.
> Pete


Brass is Winchester, primer is 210 Fed, and charge is 60grs IMR4350 (I would work up to this charge if I were you even it you are using the GS HV 150gr bullet, Winchester brass, 210 primers and IMR4350 in a Mark V and if you change any of the load order you must begin at 57grs.)


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

Beartooth: Thanks for the load data. I, too, have had very good experience with the 4350 series of powders from IMR and Accurate. I usually load 165 -180 grain bullets and so the charge weight is different. I have some good 150s. I'll have to give this load a work up and see if it will work.
Since it's 15 deg. out there right now, it won't be today. When I get to this, the rifle will be a T/C Encore. 
Pete


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

darkgael said:


> Beartooth: Thanks for the load data. I, too, have had very good experience with the 4350 series of powders from IMR and Accurate. I usually load 165 -180 grain bullets and so the charge weight is different. I have some good 150s. I'll have to give this load a work up and see if it will work.
> Since it's 15 deg. out there right now, it won't be today. When I get to this, the rifle will be a T/C Encore.
> Pete


I also used 60grs of IMR4350 be hind a 165gr Sierra HPBT and to date it is the most accurate round fired in my 06. Here is a three shot group with that load using Winchester brass, 210 primer and the 165gr bullet. The first and third round are in the bottom hole and the second round is the top hole.


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

Sweet group. The best that I've shot with my '06 is one inch with the iron sights. That load was 54 grs. of IMR 4350 and a CCI 200 primer, a Remington 165 PSP.
Pete


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

As mentioned I went to a faster powder and mag primers but had OAL to short. Last night I loaded 53grs of IMR4320 with a 215 Fed mag primer in Nosler Custom brass and got 3126fps but had an 1 1/2 group, but my OAL was 3.252". After viewing the group I decided to increase my OAL to 3.300" but due to recommendations from the experts with this bullet I will use 3.350" I will try this coming Thrusday morning and I do some shooting. This was not quite a max load and pressures signs are not present but do not use this load data in a 06 using conventional bullets.














































Tonight when I loaded some more rounds I set my OAL at 3.327" Bullet touched lands at 3.339". Will see Thursday.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Beartooth, you've asked for thoughts, so I'll share mine. First of all, nice shooting. We've come to expect that from you on here. :beer:

My thoughts on sd's are that, yes, it is very important info, and even though MUCH can be learned from it we can also be "tricked" into believing it means more than it does. As I continue please consider I am well aware I am teaching you nothing, only sharing my opinions.

3 shots isn't indicactive of much...in most cases. All it meant is on_ that_ day, t_hose _3 rounds produced nearly identical results. That doesn't mean it will happen again tomorrow...although it very well could. Sd's in single digits are always my goal, but I've found that a few degrees difference in the ambient temperature changes those numbers very readily. My BR may shoot sd's in the morning between 3 and 6, but in the afteroon be up over 10...or visa-versa. That's not to say my load needs tweaked, only that sd's that small can't be counted on all the time. I personally use sd's to qauge pressures as powder is increased almost more than anything else.

As to the sleeping bullet theory...which I believe it _IS_ fair to call it theory...well, I have a few problems with it. I had a lengthy discussion about that very topic with a Sierra tech. He was very knowledgeable, but I can't get past one aspect of the theory. The bullets print an inch apart because, assuming a perfect hold each shot, they had "wobbled" off-course. And whatever direction the bullet is "pointing" when it passes through the target at 100 yards is the direction it's going to continue to go. Newton proved that to us many years ago in his first law of motion when he explained how an object will travel in the same direction unless acted upon by another force. We all know the bullet is being acted upon by several forces, but my point is none of them are directional to the point of bringing the bullet BACK to the centerline of the bore. So I see absolutely no way that bullet can do anything other than move _*FARTHER*_ from the centerline as distance from the muzzle increases. So I am firmly in the camp of those who believe an accurate 600 yard gun is also an accurate 100 yard gun.

Meaning that if I was going to come to LA and shoot for money...with your rifles, and the target was at 600 yards, I would pick your .257 and be planning how to spend the money while you were loading your '06. :lol:

:beer:


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Csquared said:


> Beartooth, you've asked for thoughts, so I'll share mine. First of all, nice shooting. We've come to expect that from you on here. :beer:
> 
> My thoughts on sd's are that, yes, it is very important info, and even though MUCH can be learned from it we can also be "tricked" into believing it means more than it does. As I continue please consider I am well aware I am teaching you nothing, only sharing my opinions.
> 
> ...


You have taken the time to write and interesting post, and I really like your humor. The logic you stated from your premise is sound. Now that said logic does not discover truth because truth transcends logic. Logic only points out error. Example: 2+2=4 - This is not only logical but true because two objects added to two more objects are four objects. 2 Leprechauns + 2 Leprechauns = 4 Leprechauns - This is logical but not true because there are no such things a Leprechauns.

Your premise is based upon Newtons theory "Newton proved that to us many years ago in his first law of motion when he explained how an object will travel in the same direction unless acted upon by another force." What we have proved empirically is that there is another force present which we describe as the wobble disrupting gyroscopic stability causes the difference between a very tight group at 100yds and a average to poor group at 100yds by down range results. Taking both bullets and noticing that the very tight group at 100yds does not group as tight as the poor group did at 300 yards. This very fact that has been demonstrated time and time again proves the bullet is being acted upon by another force. When a bullet does not have gyroscopic stability at one hundred yards but does at three hundred yards printing actually a tighter group at 300 than at 100, this is evidence that the wobble is moving the center of line in a consistent circle to keep it in a certain line but not in as accurate a line as when the bullet finally stabilizes. Now if you want to you can pm me and we can talk on the phone and I will be able to go into much greater detail. I understand your line of logic but logic does not discover truth. Logic is dependent up on having true truth as it's premise before it can be actually valid. There is a truth that has been demonstrated empirically that sustains the validity of the idea that a bullet that does not have gyroscopic stability can and does go to sleep and stabilize.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Good stuff and interesting debate. i too agree that an accurate 100 yard gun will continue to be accurate at longer ranges - all things being equal... and we all know that they never are from one session to the next.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Sasha and Abby said:


> Good stuff and interesting debate. i too agree that an accurate 100 yard gun will continue to be accurate at longer ranges - all things being equal... and we all know that they never are from one session to the next.


The accurate gun is really not the debate, it is the stabilizing of a bullet down range. There is no argument about an accurate gun being able to shoot at all ranges.


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

Sent a PM related to this.
Pete


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Standard deviations are nothing more and nothing less than a measure of consistency in a given load. It would be a poor gauge of pressure, as you suggests, and it really says nothing beyond assessing technique for that given rifle/load. I do agree that three shots are inadequate for drawing a conclusion. Statistical tests would recommend at least a ten shot string before drawing a conclusion. My experience, however, leads me to conclude that almost always if I have a standard deviation less than 1% with three shots, the figure will not change drastically with ten shots.

Again, if minor temperature variations cause one's loads to change as drastically as indicated in an earlier post, it would indicate that your choice of powder may need to be reassessed.

The suggestion that standard deviation changes with increasing charge cannot be held as a hard and fast rule. In some instances, especially with slow powders, standard deviations are reduced as charge is increased, even though pressure is increased to dangerous levels. In other instances, standard deviations are increased. Again, there are so many variables that no firm conclusion could be drawn that would apply across the board and serve as a general rule.

Bullets spin around a center axis, the spin imparted by the rifling as the bullet passes down the barrel. If the axis of the bullet is perfectly aligned with the barrel, there is no yaw imparted. However, if the bullet is tipped through a flawed crown, imperfection in the jacket, or any of several other factors, the bullet will experience yaw as it rotates around an axis that is not aligned with the center of the bullet. Much as a gyroscope can correct itself after a period of being put off course, so a bullet can correct itself after a finite distance of travel. There are numerous factors that will influence how far the bullet must travel before it corrects itself. In point of fact, the bullet does not travel precisely where the tip is pointed, but where the center of axis is pointed, whether that is the true center or a center imposed by the action imparted to the bullet.

Basically you failed to realize that you were dealing with a gyroscopic issue and not a motion issue.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I only have a few minutes so I can't get into this completely, but 2 things need to be explained before I decide which way to go with this...

First, did you mean to say this?

Beartooth wrote:


> When a bullet does not have gyroscopic stability at one hundred yards but does at three hundred yards printing actually a tighter group at 300 than at 100


I'm fully aware of the forces on the bullet, and I believe I stated such in my post. But we know what direction the bullet moves as a result of gravity, and we know what friction does to both velocity and rotational speed, and although I can't remember now which way a bullet moves due to the gyroscopic motion in a counter-clockwise spin, we can rest assured none of those forces invlove "smart technology" that steers the bullet back to the line of sight. Once a bullet is off-coarse, there's no coming back! :wink:

For your theory to be proven true you would have to show that the bullets that printed a one-hole group at 100 yards would become grossly destabilized further down range. They would have to if they were to allow the bullets that printed a one inch group at 100 yards to better them at 600. It's akin to me giving you a head start in a foot race. If you're as fast as me I'll never catch you.....unless you fall down!!!!!

Second...

Beartooth wrote:


> Standard deviations are nothing more and nothing less than a measure of consistency in a given load. It would be a poor gauge of pressure, as you suggests, and it really says nothing beyond assessing technique for that given rifle/load


As much as you include chrony data in your posts I'm surprised to see this from you. I'm sure you've noticed as you work up a load that as you add powder, and pressure increases, the sd's drop. In a medium load sd's will start out in the upper 20's or low 30's, and as you approach maximum the sd's typically (if your rifle likes that bullet/powder combination) will drop down to the low teens. But as you continue to add powder, almost always the sd's start to rise...but at a sharper rate than before. If you continue to add powder after that point, the typical pressure signs start to appear.

So if you aren't using your chrony to _HELP_ assess pressures, you're missing the boat! :beer:


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

I do not know where to begin with you. I would have to write a book on what you fail to understand with your convoluted conclusions of the field of physics much less Internal, External and Terminal ballistic. I find your thought process a cacophony not a symphony. Your implications or not consistent and you truly do not understand this field. I use pressure gages to record pressures which is the only way you can know for sure not from the chrony. I do not have the time or energy to correct all that you have miss applied and implied failing to connect the dots, much less failed to understand. If you take offense at this I can't help it, but I will not nor can I engage someone who synthesize every aspect of what he does not have a clear understanding of and assumes because he thinks he has logically concluded correctly he has come to the truth of the matter. Please forgive me but I choose not to continue this conversation with you. Thank you beartooth :eyeroll:


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

> They would have to if they were to allow the bullets that printed a one inch group at 100 yards to better them at 600.


There is a reference to this idea in the February issue of American Rifleman.
In the Dope Bag test of an EAA .50 BMG rifle, the reviewer makes then observation that, while the rifle produced four inch groups (4 moa) at 100 yards, the down range groups were better ("Accuracy improved at 200 yards as the bullets stabilized.") He does not develop this idea in the review but he is pretty obviously referring to a situation where a rifle is printing 4MOA groups at 100 yards and less than 4MOA groups at a longer distance.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> There is a reference to this idea in the February issue of American Rifleman.
> In the Dope Bag test of an EAA .50 BMG rifle, the reviewer makes then observation that, while the rifle produced four inch groups (4 moa) at 100 yards, the down range groups were better ("Accuracy improved at 200 yards as the bullets stabilized.") He does not develop this idea in the review but he is pretty obviously referring to a situation where a rifle is printing 4MOA groups at 100 yards and less than 4MOA groups at a longer distance.


Good post, darkgael. That's how you explain your case in this format....and you did it without calling me stupid!!!!!!!

THANK YOU FOR THAT!!!! :beer:

What you've posted is what Beartooth should have explained, but if you read his post you'll see he is not talking about M.O.A...he actually said a rifle could *print a smaller group* at 300 yards than at 100 yards. I gave him the opportunity to correct his statement, but he instead chose to respond in a different manner .....something that will be addressed soon. :wink:

I have never doubted the theory you explain, and I doubt anyone would argue that after a bullet stabilizes to it's full potential it flies more true than before. And from that point forward it will be "more accurate", as you've stated. But my contention had to do with the degree of difference. Although the bullet becomes more "accurate" down range, it is no longer headed in the direction it was fired, so for the groups to be similar at distance ,in my opinion, there can't be a big difference in groups at 100 yards. That was the topic of conversation with Sierra years ago and the reason I questioned Beartooth's thought process this time. The 300 yard example posed by Beartooth is not very far, and I simply don't agree that 300 yards is far enough for a 3/4 MOA 100 yard rifle to beat a 1/8 MOA 100 yard rifle...even if the 3/4 gun IS shooting the "perfect" long range load.

But that's nothing more than my opinion...and I could be wrong. 

And he did ask for *thoughts*. :wink:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

WOW!

Before I get into this let me aplogize in advance to everyone other than Beartooth for all the words I am about to miss spell. It's very late and I'm exhausted, but a post like this one can't be left alone too long!

Beartooth wrote to Csquared:


> I do not know where to begin with you. I would have to write a book on what you fail to understand with your convoluted conclusions of the field of physics much less Internal, External and Terminal ballistic. I find your thought process a cacophony not a symphony. Your implications or not consistent and you truly do not understand this field. I use pressure gages to record pressures which is the only way you can know for sure not from the chrony. I do not have the time or energy to correct all that you have miss applied and implied failing to connect the dots, much less failed to understand. If you take offense at this I can't help it, but I will not nor can I engage someone who synthesize every aspect of what he does not have a clear understanding of and assumes because he thinks he has logically concluded correctly he has come to the truth of the matter. Please forgive me but I choose not to continue this conversation with you. Thank you beartooth


Wish you would explain to us how you make your bullets turn corners before you leave the conversation. Because a dumb ******* like me is having a hard time understanding how the same 3 bullets can print a one inch group at 100 yards and a group less than one inch at 300 yards unless they can steer themselves.

Beartooth wrote to Csquared:


> When a bullet does not have gyroscopic stability at one hundred yards but does at three hundred yards printing actually a tighter group at 300 than at 100


But assuming you know as much as you would like us to believe, what reason do you have for being here if it's not to educate us ignorant ones? You've concluded that I know nothing about the subject, yet you refuse to enlighten me. So why then are you here?

Just curious? 

You asked for thoughts, and I gave you mine. I thought I was more than respectful of your opinion. I didn't even ask you how you could possibly conclude the load was "a long range load for sure" when all the data you had at your disposal to make that conclusion were chrony readings from 3 shots and one 3/4" 100 yard group.

Did I see where you said you were a counselor? I have to ask because it seems strange that a counselor would be so quick to judge.

Beartooth to another poster:


> I disagree with you on every point and do so because of the experience which allows me to know


Beartooth to another poster:


> If you ever owned one (and by the way you responded indicates you have not) you would see the advantage


Beartooth to another poster:


> Show me your chrony results and targets of your 25-06 as I have in the past posted on this forum concerning velocities and accuracy of a Mark V 257Wby and maybe, just maybe you might have a small point to argue. Don't take this personal, I just absolutely disagree with your conclusions.


Beartooth to Csquared:


> Basically you failed to realize that you were dealing with a gyroscopic issue and not a motion issue.


We're dealing with both. The main premise of your post deals with the former, and my contention of your logic deals with the latter. It sounds to me like you are confusing the bullet's correction of itself with the correction of it's direction of travel, but *please...*correct me if I'm wrong :wink:

Beartooth to Csquared:


> Much as a gyroscope can correct itself after a period of being put off course, so a bullet can correct itself after a finite distance of travel.


I have no issue with the theory of long distance bullet stabilization in general, but after they have "wobbled" off course for 100-200 yards, their direction of travel has been altered. That fact is evidenced by the size of the 100 yard group. If you were to draw the path of each bullet as an exaggerated arch, that arch would "flatten" (separate of the affects of gravity) as the bullet stabilized, but even after stability has been reached that line still has no other choice but to continue in the direction determined by that arch, and the 3 bullets are in 3 different archs...going 3 different directions. The point of aim no longer has any relevance to those 3 bullets, other than as a point of reference. I am aware of no law of physics that has even an icecube's chance in hell of bringing any of the 3 bullets back towards the line of sight.

So what I was hoping for when I asked you to confirm your statement that it was possible for the same 3 bullets to print a smaller 300 yard group than a 100 yard group was that you would post something similar to darkgael's post above. Because then we could find some common ground. But you apparently meant what you said. 

It shouldn't be asking too much of a man with your vast knowledge to post the basic physics principle(s) that make(s) this smaller 300 yard group scenario of yours possible. Although I am nowhere near as smart as you (heck, even though you use the word "empirically" in almost all of your posts, I still don't know what it means!) I'm pretty sure I could pronounce the words well enough to figure out what they meant if you were to post the info here. :lol:

As to your rush to judgement concerning my thoughts on sd's...



> The suggestion that standard deviation changes with increasing charge cannot be held as a hard and fast rule. In some instances, especially with slow powders, standard deviations are reduced as charge is increased, even though pressure is increased to dangerous levels. In other instances, standard deviations are increased. Again, there are so many variables that no firm conclusion could be drawn that would apply across the board and serve as a general rule


....nowhere did I say I considered chronograph info a general rule concerning pressure. But the beauty of it is no one has to take my word for it. Chronographs are very affordable now, and many here use them regularly. If anyone was inclined to test my theory it could be done in one day. It doesn't take long to notice the pattern if you're watching for it.

In closing, one thing I've noticed about you is that you are not very tolerant of opinions that differ from yours. It might help to be reminded that this is an opinion forum, so if you don't like to be bothered by people who don't take everything you say as the Gospel, perhaps you should stick to the venue mentioned above....

Beartooth to Csquared:


> I would have to write a book


Also, I am not asking you to devote much time to us on this.

Beartooth to Csquared:


> I do not have the time or energy to correct all that you have miss applied


I'm just asking you to explain one statement to us. I'm not claiming to be right, and I'm not even trying to say you're wrong. All I'm saying is I can't see how, and I'd like to have it explained.

That's not asking too much....is it? :lol:


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

I guess you can't read but I will say it one more time and I will not engage your ego nor will I validate your rambling. Please do not respond to any of my posts in the future and I will not respond to yours. In case you have trouble with the English language, let me write it one more time. I will not continue this discussion with you. Please understand that "it is what it is." Thank you


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks for showing us all what a class act you are, Beartooth! :eyeroll:

I have always treated everyone on here with at *least* as much respect as they deserve, including you, and this is the only way you care to respond? :roll:

But for the record, I will continue to respond to your posts as I see the need...or as your logic deems necessary :lol:

......or until *Chris* tells me to stop, so you might want to PM him right now. He's a very nice guy. I'm sure he'll understand........

......._COMPLETELY_ understand. :wink:


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Bless your heart, you truly have it bad. No problem if you respond to my post. I will just let them go, but you really might want to seek and consider some counseling for your compulsive need to have the last word. You really need to let this thing with me go. I hope you have the good since to do so because it truly is becoming and issue with you. I hope the best for you in every way and I do not dislike you and if you truly respected me you would have allowed my choice of not wanting to continue the discussion, to stand. So please do not talk about respecting me. Please understand and I don't know how to say this any other way, other than, I just don't want to engage with you. Don't take things so personal.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

While I have heard of the phenomenom of a bullet settling in at distance, it is almost always associated with slow moving calibers, like the 303 british.

If a rifle shoots 3" at 100 yds, it cannot print tighter than that and will always shoot larger than that at distance, unless the reason for the 3" group at 100 is shooter error.

While a bullet that is overstabilized, too fast of twist, will settle in at distance. The actual size of the groups will not decrease over distance. The size of the groups measured in MOA may decrease slightly, but the groups will still be larger.

So for the 50 cal article, 4 MOA at 100 yds is approximately 4". So if it shot a 7" group at 200 yds, approx 3.5 MOA, it shot a lesser MOA than at 100 yds, but was still a bigger group.

What you have proposed in smaller groups is impossible as the bullets would actually have to come back towards the actual line of sight, going the opposite way from where they drifted from the line of sight to begin with.

So while the MOA may get smaller, the actual groups will always get larger.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Smaller MOA was the implication just not communicated in clear terms. Your point is well made.


----------



## ac700wildcat (Oct 30, 2006)

beartooth said:


> Smaller MOA was the implication just not communicated in clear terms. Your point is well made.


That statement would have changed the way this post went two or three days ago.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Yes, I understand that, I truly am sorry I did not make it clear, I assumed it was understood and should have not assumed so. That is my mistake.


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Csquared, I am going to apologize for the hard comments I made toward you. I will be more accommodating in respecting you, your ideas and will not assume so much in the future. I will be civil toward you from this point on. I am asking for your forgiveness and those on this forum. I think there are things you don't know and there are things I don't know. So I will bury the hatchet and you will have to be the one to dig it up if it shows itself again. Once again, I apologize to you and others for the conduct of this thread.


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

Beartooth: +1. Good for you.

Pete


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Csquared, I am going to apologize for the hard comments I made toward you. I will be more accommodating in respecting you, your ideas and will not assume so much in the future. I will be civil toward you from this point on. I am asking for your forgiveness and those on this forum. I think there are things you don't know and there are things I don't know. So I will bury the hatchet and you will have to be the one to dig it up if it shows itself again. Once again, I apologize to you and others for the conduct of this thread.


Apology accepted, Beartooth. And you are forgiven. And there's no need to fear the resurfacing of any hatchet, because it's not my weapon of choice. 

I am here to learn, and I hope that's why others are here. Much of what is discussed in this forum *IS* rocket science, and with all the theories involved there will always be room for debate. And that's a good thing. I firmly believe debate is like weightlifting for the brain. How much debate do you think occurs during a NASA mission? And those guys are the best of the best. If knowing it all was the end-all of all topics, there would be no need for debate...and we all know that isn't the case.

Oh, and saying there are things I don't know is like saying there are women in the world I haven't seen naked.

I dream of the day when neither is still true ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

...but I got a better chance with the women :wink:


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

beartooth said:


> This is logical but not true because there are no such things a Leprechauns. .


There are too Leprechauns, my cousin Shamis is one. :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist.

Continue the debate


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Csquared said:


> > Csquared, I am going to apologize for the hard comments I made toward you. I will be more accommodating in respecting you, your ideas and will not assume so much in the future. I will be civil toward you from this point on. I am asking for your forgiveness and those on this forum. I think there are things you don't know and there are things I don't know. So I will bury the hatchet and you will have to be the one to dig it up if it shows itself again. Once again, I apologize to you and others for the conduct of this thread.
> 
> 
> Apology accepted, Beartooth. And you are forgiven. And there's no need to fear the resurfacing of any hatchet, because it's not my weapon of choice.
> ...


Thanks for the response and I say lets move on and have fun posting about he things we like to talk about and of course debate.  :beer:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Beartooth and Csquared, both of you showed some class there! An apology isn't an easy thing, and graciously accepting an apology without holding a grudge is more than a lot of people would do.

just my :2cents:


----------



## beartooth (Feb 18, 2007)

Csquared, I sent you a PM


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thank you.

Reply sent.


----------

