You wont develop loads at 100 yards ever again

Just stop a minute, breathe, and consider how bullets would improve their direction of travel based solely on your desire(or belief) of it.
Draw it out on paper, shoot it out on paper, with no changes other than distance, and you will be forced to concede that bullets do not and can not steer themselves back from actual deviation to your original aimpoint.

As far as 50cals shooting 4"/100, that doesn't surprise me, I've shot a few myself.
5"/1kyd? I would call that an anomalis wallet group..
 
you can't test this theory with human error involved it won't be accurate

That could be true however a good place to start. There would be no need to explore other methods to reduce the human error factor if it's determined short range MOA is similar to long range MOA shooting both under similar conditions at the same time.
 
I don't think any camera that any of us can buy would confirm this video. It looks like another mad scientist who wrote a program? Ballistic tables don't lie. If your groups are great at 100, use the tables and then look for confirmation. After that your scope, and other factors are probably what needs analyzing.
 
they don't steer themselves but they will settle down and maintain their accuracy with less deviation maybe I've been wrong for years and my load development has only won matches by luck and not proven with actual shooting 100 yards is not a good test for longrange accuracy period. I know this not from reading but from testing your just wasting your time at 100 in a true longrange load development just my opinion
 
You can generalize that 100yd groups don't matter for a 1/2moa 1kyd gun, but you can't prove that same gun isn't 1/2moa capable at 100yds.
You just go from a 1kyd load to a 100yd load and rocket science turns into common sense..
 
if the gun is .5 capable at 1000 it is definitely.5 capable at 100 nobody is disputing that but I'm talking about bullets and loads not the gun if the load shoots 1moa out of a .5 moa capable gun then I test it at extended range before I rule out that load
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top