Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet stabilization myth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 200477" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>I always used to think people were saying that their measured groups at longer distances were smaller than their measured groups at closer distances, which is why I was quick to exclaim BS.</p><p></p><p>But I've come to learn that what they were probably saying all along (or perhaps I was misunderstanding all along) was that the moa calculated from the measured groups at longer distances was smaller than the moa calculated from the groupings measured at closer distances. light bulb</p><p></p><p>As Fiftydriver said, bullet groupings don't necessarily create the outline of a perfect three-dimensional cone over distance. If after the bullets stabilize in flight, they spread/disperse outward at a lesser rate per distance traveled than they initially spread/dispersed while they were in unstable flight, then one can understand how it's possible to print a lesser moa group at the longer distance than at shorter range. The actual measurement of the groups will always be greater at longer distances, however the moa calculated from the measured groups can be smaller at long range than from groups at closer ranges. Imagine that the coning shape of the group expands at a lesser rate after the bullet flight stablizes than it expanded prior to bullet flight stablization.</p><p></p><p>Now is everyone thoroughly confused? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> Or not. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 200477, member: 4191"] I always used to think people were saying that their measured groups at longer distances were smaller than their measured groups at closer distances, which is why I was quick to exclaim BS. But I've come to learn that what they were probably saying all along (or perhaps I was misunderstanding all along) was that the moa calculated from the measured groups at longer distances was smaller than the moa calculated from the groupings measured at closer distances. light bulb As Fiftydriver said, bullet groupings don't necessarily create the outline of a perfect three-dimensional cone over distance. If after the bullets stabilize in flight, they spread/disperse outward at a lesser rate per distance traveled than they initially spread/dispersed while they were in unstable flight, then one can understand how it's possible to print a lesser moa group at the longer distance than at shorter range. The actual measurement of the groups will always be greater at longer distances, however the moa calculated from the measured groups can be smaller at long range than from groups at closer ranges. Imagine that the coning shape of the group expands at a lesser rate after the bullet flight stablizes than it expanded prior to bullet flight stablization. Now is everyone thoroughly confused? :confused: Or not. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet stabilization myth?
Top