Thread: Accuracy at 100 vs 600 (example). Variations in accuracy at different ranges

I have heard of the term where a projectile or load settles down at distance and gets accurate where as it might not look that flash at say 100metres on paper. I have also heard the opposite, a nice group at 100 but opens up at distance and turns to rubbish. What is people’s experience with this?

My current 284 load seems to be the first example. It doesn’t do much flash at 100 but when I was shooting the gong at 575 yards it was shooting like a tack driver. I always thought it didn’t make sense?

My accuracy increases (relative to MOA) with my Sako85 at longer ranges, although i think its because at 500m im really focused mentally on shooting good but at 100m im complacent and my mind wanders.

I have read of 6.5x55 projectiles "going to sleep" over hundreds of metres.

I assume that means settling down into a very consistent stable flight resulting in high accuracy at distance.

Brian Litz has an article somewhere on this - basic gist was it is impossible physics for a bullet to settle down and get more accurate at range e.g be 2 moa at 100 yards and then 0.5 at 600

The theory is called epicyclic swerve. Litz initially touted this but later disproved it, in his opinion, by shooting thru a whole line of targets out to a considerable range and then measured the groups at each range. Found no evidence to support the old "projectile going to sleep".

However, I know of a top long range shooter in Oz who states (with back up theory) that you should never group test at less than 140 yards. Why 140 yards? Go figure.

https://www.longrangehunting.com/thr...swerve.148380/

I personally tend to shoot better groups at 200m vs 100m(moa wise) but I think that is more of a eye strain /lighting/parallax type issue.

Its not possible. A projectile cannot just alter its course mid flight (other than due to external factors, wind etc), as would be required in order for a projectile that was shooting say 1 inch at 100 to shoot better than that at distance.

All of this seems to line up with what I always thought. The physics/math just never made sense to me.

The .303 Mk VII round was renowned for its lack of erratic flyers in the 500 to 900 yard area. The grouping consistency was better in that range than the shorter or longer ranges. Obviously the velocity/twist rate suited the projectile at that range, although the group sizes would naturally increase as the range increased. 10-12 inch groups were common at 900 yards, even better in some choice rifles, using aperture sights on tuned SMLE and No.4 target rifles. The 'sweet spot' for my scoped .308 No4 conversion was 800 metres giving very consistent performance with F4 ammo. My .30/06 long range rifle runs 0.5 MOA out to 200 metres but I haven't tried it on paper beyond that, just steel which is hit or miss.

i have experienced this also, put it down to the fact that i can see the 100m target to clearly and i tense up a little to try and hold the rifle still, at the longer range where i cant see the lines on paper i relax and don't over cook the shot

Originally Posted by muka88

i have experienced this also, put it down to the fact that i can see the 100m target to clearly and i tense up a little to try and hold the rifle still, at the longer range where i cant see the lines on paper i relax and don't over cook the shot

Recently I've noticed my fliers have been coming into play when I've got two holes touching, or close to, and I'm concentrating really hard to make the third shot good. Same thing I think - tensing up to hold more still and end up duffing it.

I have found that aiming at a smaller target at 100 gives a smaller grouping than aiming at a large one.

So aiming at the same size target at 100m as at 200m forces the fine aiming to be more precise due to the perceived reduced target size.

More about the aiming process than the physics which remain constant.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

Its not possible. A projectile cannot just alter its course mid flight (other than due to external factors, wind etc), as would be required in order for a projectile that was shooting say 1 inch at 100 to shoot better than that at distance.

Thank you Chris, common logic prevails!

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

I have found that aiming at a smaller target at 100 gives a smaller grouping than aiming at a large one.

So aiming at the same size target at 100m as at 200m forces the fine aiming to be more precise due to the perceived reduced target size.

More about the aiming process than the physics which remain constant.

Yep I reckon this is it.

I can nearly always shoot far better groups at 400 than I can at 100 (in moa).

Greetings All,
There are a couple of things that can result in apparent better accuracy at longer ranges. Note the word apparent. The first is scope parallax. Non parallax adjustable scopes are set to be parallax free at 150 metres or more. This can result in slightly larger groups at 100 metres than 150 to 200 metres in MoA. The rifle is not more accurate at the longer range, it's just better aimed. For longer range with the .303 target rifles the reason is a little different. Talking to some of the older target shooters who had used the No 4 Lee Enfields they believed that the rifles tended to throw faster projectiles a little low and slower ones a little high. The ammunition they were using was military and velocity varied somewhat so the rifles compensated (their words) and brought the fliers closer to the centre at longer range. All but one of the rifles I have had over the years strung the shots up the target as velocity increases, some much more than others. The exception was a Winchester 88 in .308 which strung them in the other direction. Never tried it at 900 yards though.
Regards Grandpamac