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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
recoil v accuracy
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="SBruce" data-source="post: 522826" data-attributes="member: 21068"><p>Perhaps what's needed to settle this once and for all, is slow speed film of a rifle on the bench, shooting free recoil, hair trigger.........and only the trigger is touched......couple of cameras from different angles but shown side/side on the screen.? One will see the trigger break and any resulting rear movement, while the other is showing the barrel crown and eventually the bullet release.......both cameras synched.....timer running......watching the whole shabang at once.?</p><p> </p><p>Results would be easier to see if we shot a pretty heavy bullet quite slow, like under 2000'/sec I be thinkin.</p><p> </p><p>I am still failing to understand how; If there is no rifle movement (other than shooter induced) untill the bullet is gone......then why do most top shooters in most fields say that consistant tracking/hold/stock pressure and return to battery <u>do matter</u> when it comes to shooting good groups. </p><p> </p><p>Maybe I am just dense, but it seems that under the "no movement" theory; it wouldn't matter one darn bit how we hold the rifle or how consistant it reacts under recoil if the bullet is gone by time it does recoil.? Only thing that would matter is that the crosshairs are in the same place on target when the bullet leaves the rifle.</p><p> </p><p>Most of the physics part of the discussion went right over my head, especially the closed vessel theories, so maybe I am just Dense.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SBruce, post: 522826, member: 21068"] Perhaps what's needed to settle this once and for all, is slow speed film of a rifle on the bench, shooting free recoil, hair trigger.........and only the trigger is touched......couple of cameras from different angles but shown side/side on the screen.? One will see the trigger break and any resulting rear movement, while the other is showing the barrel crown and eventually the bullet release.......both cameras synched.....timer running......watching the whole shabang at once.? Results would be easier to see if we shot a pretty heavy bullet quite slow, like under 2000'/sec I be thinkin. I am still failing to understand how; If there is no rifle movement (other than shooter induced) untill the bullet is gone......then why do most top shooters in most fields say that consistant tracking/hold/stock pressure and return to battery [U]do matter[/U] when it comes to shooting good groups. Maybe I am just dense, but it seems that under the "no movement" theory; it wouldn't matter one darn bit how we hold the rifle or how consistant it reacts under recoil if the bullet is gone by time it does recoil.? Only thing that would matter is that the crosshairs are in the same place on target when the bullet leaves the rifle. Most of the physics part of the discussion went right over my head, especially the closed vessel theories, so maybe I am just Dense.:) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
recoil v accuracy
Top