7MM Nosler ABLR

[Broz]

All I can say about it is I have seen it over and over especially with big 338's. The loads shoot right at or just under 1 moa at 100. Usually 3 groups of 3 shots ea.. Then I take them to 200 or 300 yards and the same loads shoot .5 moa or better repeatedly. Now not just once in a while but quite often and I work up loads for over a dozen long range rifles a year. That is a conservative figure.

Call it what you want, but if they fight me at 100 I take them farther to confirm what I really have.

Jeff

 

[jrock]

Mind you I have not shot a ton of different bullets but the half dozen I have shot always are equal MOA measurements or better from 100 yards to 400. I know that some people have different results but I have yet to see them.

 

[KYpatriot]

All I can say about it is I have seen it over and over especially with big 338's. The loads shoot right at or just under 1 moa at 100. Usually 3 groups of 3 shots ea.. Then I take them to 200 or 300 yards and the same loads shoot .5 moa or better repeatedly. Now not just once in a while but quite often and I work up loads for over a dozen long range rifles a year. That is a conservative figure.

Call it what you want, but if they fight me at 100 I take them farther to confirm what I really have.

Jeff

If you have a rifle/bullet combination that consistently does this then it would be great if you could set up a test and demonstrate it. Perhaps it could be done by putting up a target aimpoint at 300 or greater but not actually dialing the elevation in the scope. Then some very thin cellophane or rice paper could be set up at 100, 200, and 300 yards that would indicate the group at those ranges. It would be very interesting to prove that what many think is happening really IS happening. We will never know for sure until we actually observe this decreasing dispersion in group size of the same set of bullets.

Until that happens I'll stand on my belief that if such a test is performed, we will see that the groups never get better with range because there is no way for bullet to steer itself back into a group.

That said, I accept without question that people do see what Jeff describes above...where for some reason they are shooting better angular groups at 300 than 100. The question is why, and if we ever figure it out my bet is that it will have to do with aiming error due to parallax as was mentioned, or a human factor of some sort. I know for sure it is very common for people to shoot better groups when they can't see them for example. It's not something to dwell on because it's not a bad problem to have( unless you are a 100 yd bench rest shooter) but I would like to know the answer out of sheer curiosity.

So, if you can demonstrate this phenomenon consistently and repeatedly then someone please record it using the method I described or a better method and give us gun geeks another ballistics subject to consider when we should be working!

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Bullets that are launched out of a barrel off axis will do some wacky things before the immense rotational forces overcome thier crooked launch and cause their rotational axis to align with their direction of flight.

This scenario will cause a bullet to be flying much more stable at 300 yds than at 100 yds. Givin that rotational energy slows at a lesser rate than forward energy its not unusual for bullets to become more stable as they fly. Exactly like a top that was not started straight. Except the 200,000 rpms of a bullet tend to straigten it out much faster.

If the bullet is out of balance because of a physical flaw, it may have much more trouble flying straight, and the faster its spun the worse it gets.

This being said,
Long bullets are more difficult to get straight than short bullets, and the tighter twist required to spin them can exaggerate this entire process taking longer for the bullet to settle down. These scenario can lead to a gun that shoots 1" at 100yds and also at 300 yds. The bullet is not returning to its original flight plan its just simply stopped getting worse.

The best thing to do is to start the bullet into the barrel straight. This will drastically decrease the amount of time it takes for a bullet to align itself, resulting in tighter groups near and far.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Whether or not this alone is responsible for the problem, i see it often testing loads, typically more often with big long bullets, and do my best to rid it by paying more attention to my reloading.

 

[KYpatriot]

If runout is a culprit somehow I wonder if we sometimes induce it from magazine loading. Long bullets set well out if the case hitting the ramp as the are being fed from a magazine...

 

[kraky2]

Put me down as another guy who's seen long bullets tighten up at long range vrs 100 yds.
Not sure why people would be in a tizzy about it.
A 1.5" group at 100 means bullets are landing 3/4" away from center of aim....can't think of any game animal that can't be dispatched at 100 with that?

 

[Broz]

So, if you can demonstrate this phenomenon consistently and repeatedly then someone please record it using the method I described or a better method and give us gun geeks another ballistics subject to consider when we should be working!

I respect your choice to believe what ever you want. But please understand I have nothing to prove as I have seen it repeat so many times I am fully convinced. Also know I wrote an article long ago about parallax and how to properly adjust it out. You think parallax is an issue at 100 yards shoot some groups at 3000. Also I feel I have seen a great improvement with parallax adjustment in the new NF ATACR. Not only wile doing the review on the ATACR but also in the several I have installed and shot since on my own rifle. As well as some I have set up for long range in my shooting school. So I feel it would be a waste of time for me to shoot through cellophane. Are we to say that what ever we shot through would have zero effect on the bullet flight? But hey if you have the time have at it.

Just out of curiosity, since many have stated they have seen it to be more common among larger bullets. How many 230 gr. 30 cals have you dialed in loads for, or 300 gr .338's?

Thanks
Jeff

 

[gohring3006]

All I can say about it is I have seen it over and over especially with big 338's. The loads shoot right at or just under 1 moa at 100. Usually 3 groups of 3 shots ea.. Then I take them to 200 or 300 yards and the same loads shoot .5 moa or better repeatedly. Now not just once in a while but quite often and I work up loads for over a dozen long range rifles a year. That is a conservative figure.

Call it what you want, but if they fight me at 100 I take them farther to confirm what I really have.

Jeff

couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Just out of curiosity, since many have stated they have seen it to be more common among larger bullets. How many 230 gr. 30 cals have you dialed in loads for, or 300 gr .338's?

Ive done a few of the heavy 30 cal but not nearly as many as you and not anywhere near the precision you are able to obtain.

 

[KYpatriot]

I respect your choice to believe what ever you want. But please understand I have nothing to prove as I have seen it repeat so many times I am fully convinced. Also know I wrote an article long ago about parallax and how to properly adjust it out. You think parallax is an issue at 100 yards shoot some groups at 3000. Also I feel I have seen a great improvement with parallax adjustment in the new NF ATACR. Not only wile doing the review on the ATACR but also in the several I have installed and shot since on my own rifle. As well as some I have set up for long range in my shooting school. So I feel it would be a waste of time for me to shoot through cellophane. Are we to say that what ever we shot through would have zero effect on the bullet flight? But hey if you have the time have at it.

Just out of curiosity, since many have stated they have seen it to be more common among larger bullets. How many 230 gr. 30 cals have you dialed in loads for, or 300 gr .338's?

Thanks
Jeff

If I have offended you realize nobody is questioning your manhood or ability, I'm not denying the phenomenon. I clearly stated I believe your observations, but that it is my opinion there is another reason. It isn't a personal attack, just a belief based on my education in aeronautical engineering and physics. My suggestion for an experiment to record data on the same group at different ranges was because that would definitively prove I was wrong and that it truly is an external ballistics/aerodynamic effect, because no one has ever done so. I thought we were just having an esoteric discussion about an obscure, not well understood ballistic phenomenon, not slaying sacred cows. It would be cool for someone who sees this a lot with credible reputation and respected experience in long range shooting to prove it definitively because there are experienced shooters who don't believe it. I guess everyone is so sure of their own opinions no one bothers. I could do it, but no one would care. Oh well, I'll go and figure out what the "best all around cartridge" is instead, or perhaps dip into the .45 or 9mm debate lol.

 

[MMERSS]

we will see that the groups never get better with range because there is no way for bullet to steer itself back into a group.

KYpatriot, why do you believe a bullet can not steer itself back into a group?

Defining is often dependent on apples or oranges, such as an individual bullet's "path" while stabilizing vs. "net path" while stabilizing over the entire trajectory of the flight of the bullet. Is a member's attempt to explain individual (apples) or net path(oranges) or both? Why do they believe this? If I'm talking apples I believe your quote is what is happening in some situations, "a bullet steering itself back into a group." If I'm talking oranges "net path" something outside of stabilization is causing a bullet to change trajectory.

 

[Broz]

KYpatriot, I was not offended but it surely sounds like you are. Or are remarks about my manhood to be taken as another compliment?

I only offered what I did, about my experience with parallax and shooting because I do not see myself to be viewed as any type of expert. You quoted me directly stating your belief was the problem lies in my shooting skill. Even to the point of something about me being intimidated by a group I could see at 100. That sir however possible is not likely the case here. I do shoot a fair bit and 100 yard paper does little to intimidate me. Even on a last shot or a one hole group. You don't know me nor I you, so I offered what I did in reference to prove I do shoot and work with good rifles quite a lot. You seemed to read over the facts I posted. Those about my observations were derived from multiple groups at both distances with the same rifle and ammo. Not just one rifle but several over the years. I think the word I used was "repeatedly" and it is just that.

As for you statement here:
"we will see that the groups never get better with range because there is no way for bullet to steer itself back into a group."

I never said the group "got better" or the "bullet steered itself back to a group" That is your notion.

What I did say was that a group that was 1 moa at 100 was often to be under .5 moa at 300. Let me rephrase that for you so there is no more communication gaps. A 1" group at 100 to be 1.5" at 300 or a little better. You see, if you look at what I really posted no bullet was steering back at anything. But, possibly stabilizing and settling in. Maybe not, but that is what I choose to believe and it seems we have more than a few other creditable shooters here that have observed the same thing or at least similar results.

Furthermore. I only asked you one simple question you chose to not answer yet. I stated that I and others have seen this more prominently with long heavy for cal. bullets. I offered this as a possible explanation of why some have seen it and some not. That was why I asked how many 30 cal. 230's and 300 gr .338's you had worked up loads for. Did you take this as an attack on your manhood???

If everyone will look back at my post #15 and re-read it. Please note I worded it very carefully in an attempt to offer some of my actual field experience in a way to not offend or look down on there opinions. Yet my carefully stated and clear post was taken, quoted and was viewed to have to be shooter error in the name of science.

There are things I see quite often in long range and ELR that I can not always explain. Rather than beat things to death I simply watch the pattern, learn, remember and apply this to improve what I do. It helps me and I find myself to be adequate at hitting distance targets. I find actual practice works better for me than reading thick books. It's just what I choose to do.

I post much less on here these days. Maybe this exact instance will shed some light to those who have pm'd me asking why.

Have a good discussion gentlemen. I apologize for any interference on my behalf. Please carry on.

Jeff

 

[gohring3006]

KYpatriot, I was not offended but it surely sounds like you are. Or are remarks about my manhood to be taken as another compliment?

I only offered what I did, about my experience with parallax and shooting because I do not see myself to be viewed as any type of expert. You quoted me directly stating your belief was the problem lies in my shooting skill. Even to the point of something about me being intimidated by a group I could see at 100. That sir however possible is not likely the case here. I do shoot a fair bit and 100 yard paper does little to intimidate me. Even on a last shot or a one hole group. You don't know me nor I you, so I offered what I did in reference to prove I do shoot and work with good rifles quite a lot. You seemed to read over the facts I posted. Those about my observations were derived from multiple groups at both distances with the same rifle and ammo. Not just one rifle but several over the years. I think the word I used was "repeatedly" and it is just that.

As for you statement here:
"we will see that the groups never get better with range because there is no way for bullet to steer itself back into a group."

I never said the group "got better" or the "bullet steered itself back to a group" That is your notion.

What I did say was that a group that was 1 moa at 100 was often to be under .5 moa at 300. Let me rephrase that for you so there is no more communication gaps. A 1" group at 100 to be 1.5" at 300 or a little better. You see, if you look at what I really posted no bullet was steering back at anything. But, possibly stabilizing and settling in. Maybe not, but that is what I choose to believe and it seems we have more than a few other creditable shooters here that have observed the same thing or at least similar results.

Furthermore. I only asked you one simple question you chose to not answer yet. I stated that I and others have seen this more prominently with long heavy for cal. bullets. I offered this as a possible explanation of why some have seen it and some not. That was why I asked how many 30 cal. 230's and 300 gr .338's you had worked up loads for. Did you take this as an attack on your manhood???

If everyone will look back at my post #15 and re-read it. Please note I worded it very carefully in an attempt to offer some of my actual field experience in a way to not offend or look down on there opinions. Yet my carefully stated and clear post was taken, quoted and was viewed to have to be shooter error in the name of science.

There are things I see quite often in long range and ELR that I can not always explain. Rather than beat things to death I simply watch the pattern, learn, remember and apply this to improve what I do. It helps me and I find myself to be adequate at hitting distance targets. I find actual practice works better for me than reading thick books. It's just what I choose to do.

I post much less on here these days. Maybe this exact instance will shed some light to those who have pm'd me asking why.

Have a good discussion gentlemen. I apologize for any interference on my behalf. Please carry on.

Jeff

you should post more I have agreed used your advice quite often I agree also that sometimes im reluctant to post because I know someone will trash my opinion then when I make a justification for my opinion they turn it to my intelligence or my ability to shoot so I take advice from guys like you and others and try it if it works then I use it if it don't than so what it didn't work for me that doesn't mean it won't work for someone else