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

Ok so we can have a good read up on the experiment. Shame no one told litz all about it.

Originally Posted by blair993

Ok so we can have a good read up on the experiment. Shame no one told litz all about it.

Had a quick try to find it again, but from memory it was months of work with paper screens set up at different ranges so that a given string of shots produced groups at each range which could be compared. This work demonstrated shots moving away from the line of sight and then back and then travelling on a straight path.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Had a quick try to find it again, but from memory it was months of work with paper screens set up at different ranges so that a given string of shots produced groups at each range which could be compared. This work demonstrated shots moving away from the line of sight and then back and then travelling on a straight path.

You can't see the glaring faults with that methodology?

Sounds like Angelina Jolie's movie 'Wanted'

bah- who needs physics.

Originally Posted by Proudkiwi

You can't see the glaring faults with that methodology?

I have given a simple three line summary of what I remember from reading. As the reference work was the result of some months of extensive testing would it be reasonable to expect that there was a fair bit of detail which my three lines does not cover ?

The book is 'The Bullets Flight' by Dr F. W. Mann Published 1909. Check it out, first edition for sale for 180 pounds

Some info about Mann https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rc...aw15s1yDk1eHfe

A little more current testing.
from the Houston Warehouse. Very interesting reading.
Myths Busted:
Powder charges, as long as they were fairly consistent and bracketed within a couple of grains, were not important. He threw all of his charges with a Belding & Mull powder measure, and for one experiment he shot groups using three different powder measure settings (51, 52 & 53) … all three groups were identical.
Lot variation in powder didn’t seem to have any effect on accuracy, even on when using IMR 4198, which has a reputation for varying considerably from lot to lot. He would just buy powder as he needed instead of laying in a big supply, because he found no evidence to support that powder lot variance affected accuracy in the least.
He never saw an inaccurate primer, and was unable to detect any accuracy variances resulting from seating pressure.
Rumors have persisted for years that some rifles shoot proportionally better at 200 yards than 100 yards, or vice versa. Virgil files that one under “occultism.” His experience in the warehouse was, if a rifle was shooting a consistent .100″ at 100 yards, it shot a consistent .200″ at 200 yards.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

It was actually proved / demonstrated by a Doctor in the USA around 1880 - 1900.

Yeah Nah... Doctors in 1880 were handing out smokes as a cure for asthma, and arsenic to cure syphilis.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

Yeah Nah... Doctors in 1880 were handing out smokes as a cure for asthma, and arsenic to cure syphilis.

In 1880 they used Mercury, it was 1909 that the 'Magic Bullet' was invented. Doesn't mean that a DR couldn't do some ground breaking work with ballistics.

I am wondering if it has a lot to do with optimum twist rate for velocity ?

That pdf seemed to have more to do with mutilating bullets. Dunno bout the bullets but it sure put me to sleep lol!
https://web.archive.org/web/20120831...r_to_targe.pdf