Armory Sponsor
|
Quoted:
Now there's a thought. We all shoot the same recipe, with and without case prep. Compare notes. Combine the data. It addresses the issue of repeatability and shooter/rifle bias. Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda want to prep some fresh 1x Winchester and FC brass. I've got Bullseye, CFE223, and maybe enough H4895. Hornady 55 FMJs and 75 BTHP. 
|
|
Quoted:
Those are 10-shot groups or 15? A stiffer paper on a sturdy backboard makes cleaner holes and tears less. I was thinking of what I can use to make a better back board. Maybe just tape the paper better. It's pretty thick construction paper. |
|
I had to SWAG a few. Good chootin'.
LC Control: ES - 0.70, MR - 0.24. Test: ES - 1.15, MR - 0.38. Attached File Attached File WCC Control: ES - 1.31, MR - 0.39. Test: ES - 0.98, MR - 0.35. Attached File Attached File WG Control: ES - 1.66, MR - 0.42. Test: ES - 1.24, MR - 0.33. Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
I had to SWAG a few. Good chootin'. LC Control: ES - 0.70, MR - 0.24. Test: ES - 1.15, MR - 0.38. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_LC_control_OT_JPG-1199704.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_LC_test_OT_JPG-1199705.JPG WCC Control: ES - 1.31, MR - 0.39. Test: ES - 0.98, MR - 0.35. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_WCC_control_OT_JPG-1199706.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_WCC_test_OT_JPG-1199707.JPG WG Control: ES - 1.66, MR - 0.42. Test: ES - 1.24, MR - 0.33. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_WG_control_OT_JPG-1199708.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/379478/CFE223_WG_test_OT_JPG-1199710.JPG |
|
Quoted:
OP - Good on you for testing, but man you really need to run a traditional rifle powder, and more importantly a bullet that isn't an FMJ. Running a mediocre bullet at velocities approaching transonic can introduce even more variables. |
|
Quoted: Agreed. I would love to see more testing but the 55 FMJ is not a match bullet and will introduce a ton of variables to the equation. Running a mediocre bullet at velocities approaching transonic can introduce even more variables. The 77gr test I consider to me a more traditional load that many reloaders have tried. The next test will be the same bullet with H4895. My initial testing has proven that it is just as accurate or more so than the CFE223 load I have already tired. After that, I am thinking 60gr Vmax or 50 gr barnes varmint grenades. Then, if the brass is holding up after that many firings, maybe we will revisit the 55gr FMJ and see if the results are repeatable. Who knows. It is supposed to snow at my house for the next 3 days solid. Who knows when I will get the next test done. |
|
After some extensive testing with H4895, Seems that 23 gr is the sweet spot for accuracy with the 77 gr SMK. Got a consistent 5 shot groups of .6" and a 10 shot group of .9" with 3 odd flyers. Take the flyers out and it was a 7 shot .4" group. At 23.3 gr, I started seeing pressure signs in LC brass. I hope 23 gr does not cause issues with the WCC and the WG brass as they have less case capacity. |
|
Results of today's shooting
Lake city: Control group: SD: 22.62, Average 2780 fps Attached File Attached File Test group: SD: 19.6, Average 2760 fps Attached File Attached File Had 3 flyers that I called. They are marked and not taken into group size. It's nice to be able to go downrange and mark flyers as they happen. Again, the unmodified brass shot better as far as group size, but SD was slightly worse. |
|
WCC results
Control group: SD: 24.1, Average 2803 fps Attached File First 3 rounds are marked. They were not called flyers. But they were the only rounds outside the group. It was very weird. So I did 2 measurements. Attached File Attached File Test group: SD: 35.5, Average 2750. (W/o the 1 weird low reading SD: 25.5, Average 2856 fps) Attached File Attached File This is a tough one to analyze. The first 3 rounds of the control group ruined the group. I also had 1 error and the next reading on the chronograph was 100 fps lower than all the rest. In my my opinion, flash hole uniforming improved performance of the rounds. |
|
Wolf gold:
Control group: SD: 17.6, Average 2815 fps Attached File Attached File Test group: SD: 14.97, Average 2785 fps Attached File Attached File Group size was better in unmodified brass this time. SD improved though. I have never had an "X" pattern group before. There was 1 called flyer. |
|
And the numbers
Attached File Attached File I think at this point I am in need of data processing. Looking for trends in the tests. Next test will be 60gr Vmax and H335. |
|
Lots of work went into all that shooting, I appreciate what you were trying to determine. Having done a similar test with both Tac and H335, my personal conclusion was reached after trying LC, Win, and RP .223 brass and 205M primers. It was clear to me that the biggest variable was the neck tension differences and the weight(or volume) present in the three brands. All groups were similar in size and location relative to my 100 yd zero, averaging at or just under 1 MOA for, all using Moly coated 55 gr Hornady Vmax. The test platform was 20" 1/8 twist(Sabre Defense 410 SS barrel) AR that has been a real accurate shooter. H335 had the accuracy edge by a very small amount, TAC was cleaner burning, but with slightly larger SD numbers.
All this was done about 8-9 years ago, no backup was made on the 'puter, so yea, just my memory and a hard to swallow lesson. I'm just speaking now from my scribbled notes. The take away is brass composition and related weight/hardness/volume and resulting grip on the bullet seemed to be the biggest difference. LC and WIN I preferred for more consistent neck tension. Bottom line, they all were minute of dead on ground squirrels and Prairie Dogs 
Again, lots of variables and work, well done OP. |
|
Quoted:
Lots of work went into all that shooting, I appreciate what you were trying to determine. Having done a similar test with both Tac and H335, my personal conclusion was reached after trying LC, Win, and RP .223 brass and 205M primers. It was clear to me that the biggest variable was the neck tension differences and the weight(or volume) present in the three brands. All groups were similar in size and location relative to my 100 yd zero, averaging at or just under 1 MOA for, all using Moly coated 55 gr Hornady Vmax. The test platform was 20" 1/8 twist(Sabre Defense 410 SS barrel) AR that has been a real accurate shooter. H335 had the accuracy edge by a very small amount, TAC was cleaner burning, but with slightly larger SD numbers. All this was done about 8-9 years ago, no backup was made on the 'puter, so yea, just my memory and a hard to swallow lesson. I'm just speaking now from my scribbled notes. The take away is brass composition and related weight/hardness/volume and resulting grip on the bullet seemed to be the biggest difference. LC and WIN I preferred for more consistent neck tension. Bottom line, they all were minute of dead on ground squirrels and Prairie Dogs
Again, lots of variables and work, well done OP. LC: 55gr reduced load ---> improved with deburing ----> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved WCC: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing (2 out of 3 loads) ---> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD improved 77gr H4895 -----------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD got worse Wolf gold: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved The 60gr Vmax test will most likely be the end of this experiment. After that, I will reevaluate the data and hopefully see a pattern. It may just be more dependent on the brass. |
|
Boman250, does your target analysis software give the shot radii or the standard deviation of radius or only mean radius? That value would give you the mean deviation from the center of the group, a measure of the scatter about the center. If it gives SD, please post that. I suspect you have some small improvement (possibly none), that is masked by all the other errors which are causing your groups to be the size they are. Shooter performance would be a key error source. If you have a 0.75 MOA error source and IF the deburring is good for 0.1 MOA improvement (less error), it would result in a group size reduction of about 0.01 MOA. You will be hard-pressed to ever find that difference (if it is there at all) using 20 shot samples during which the shooter fatigues. ETA - This issue caught my interest again, so here is a little bit more on the topic. Error Reduction means how much of an effect the deburring has on reducing the overall error in point of impact (group size). In all cases, initial group size (without deburring) was assumed to be 0.75 MOA. I assumed deburring reduces that error by the amount shown. Error....................Group Reduction..............Size (MOA).................(MOA) 0.00.....................0.750 0.04.....................0.743 0.08.....................0.739 0.11.....................0.736 0.15.....................0.735 So, when I said you would have a hard time finding the change in your small sample test, I did not mean to be disparaging of you or your test. I just meant that, mathematically speaking, it would be almost impossible without a much larger sample size, a much smaller overall error or the deburring had a much larger effect than expected. If the groups were 0.2 MOA or 0.1 MOA to start with, you might have a better chance of seeing an effect with a small sample test. This is the benchrest competitors situation. The shooter is not as large a factor. Their rifle is as perfect as it can be. They do stuff like this to squeeze out a little bit better performance. If your groups were 0.2 MOA and you could reduce them by 10% (0.02 MOA) by simply deburring the flash hole, would you do it? |
|
Here is a specific case, me.
No matter what I do, I cannot seem to get below about 0.5 MOA when shooting at 200 yards or less. Farther is worse but even up close where wind is less important, that is about as good as it gets for me,... ever. My guess is flash hole deburring MAYBE, just maybe worth 0.1 MOA if I could find it in the "noise". This is just a guess. Certainly, it is not 1 MOA, nor even 0.5 MOA. Remember, all the other sources of error are still present and still manifest in the data. I am just eliminating the one error. Here are the numbers for my guesses: Error....................Group Reduction..............Size (MOA).................(MOA) 0.000..................0.500 0.100..................0.490 ( a group size reduction of only 0.01 MOA,  )I remember being very disappointed in the results of the test because prep was so much work. I still do it when I feel like it but it is not de rigueur for me. You might guess it's worth 0.25 MOA but my vague recollection from my testing was it was unimportant (I could not measure the effect). I remember testing unmodified brass versus deburred flash holes, uniformed primer pockets and turned case necks. The morals of all these numbers - Work the big things first. Don't sweat the small stuff. (Flash hole deburring is definitely small stuff.) I wish you best of luck and hope you have fun in your testing. Perhaps, you will see something I missed in my tests. |
|
Quoted:
Lots of work went into all that shooting, I appreciate what you were trying to determine. All this was done about 8-9 years ago, no backup was made on the 'puter, so yea, just my memory and a hard to swallow lesson. I'm just speaking now from my scribbled notes. Again, lots of variables and work, well done OP. |
|
Quoted:
I'm wondering if you will need to lengthen the distance or it may get tough to find differences. Lets see where it leads... |
|
Quoted:
Thank you for chiming in. I am starting to think that flash hole deburing may not actually accomplish anything noticeable. In fact, it seems to have made some groups worse. LC: 55gr reduced load ---> improved with deburing ----> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved WCC: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing (2 out of 3 loads) ---> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD improved 77gr H4895 -----------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD got worse Wolf gold: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved The 60gr Vmax test will most likely be the end of this experiment. After that, I will reevaluate the data and hopefully see a pattern. It may just be more dependent on the brass. Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of work went into all that shooting, I appreciate what you were trying to determine. Having done a similar test with both Tac and H335, my personal conclusion was reached after trying LC, Win, and RP .223 brass and 205M primers. It was clear to me that the biggest variable was the neck tension differences and the weight(or volume) present in the three brands. All groups were similar in size and location relative to my 100 yd zero, averaging at or just under 1 MOA for, all using Moly coated 55 gr Hornady Vmax. The test platform was 20" 1/8 twist(Sabre Defense 410 SS barrel) AR that has been a real accurate shooter. H335 had the accuracy edge by a very small amount, TAC was cleaner burning, but with slightly larger SD numbers. All this was done about 8-9 years ago, no backup was made on the 'puter, so yea, just my memory and a hard to swallow lesson. I'm just speaking now from my scribbled notes. The take away is brass composition and related weight/hardness/volume and resulting grip on the bullet seemed to be the biggest difference. LC and WIN I preferred for more consistent neck tension. Bottom line, they all were minute of dead on ground squirrels and Prairie Dogs
Again, lots of variables and work, well done OP. LC: 55gr reduced load ---> improved with deburing ----> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved WCC: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing (2 out of 3 loads) ---> SD improved (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD improved 77gr H4895 -----------> improved with deburing --------------------------> SD got worse Wolf gold: 55gr reduced load ---> got worse with deburing ---> SD got worse (2 out of 3) 77gr CFE223 ---------> improved with deburing ---> SD got worse 77gr H4895 -----------> got worse with deburing ---> SD improved The 60gr Vmax test will most likely be the end of this experiment. After that, I will reevaluate the data and hopefully see a pattern. It may just be more dependent on the brass. Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
The dilemma for this test is, as you stretch the range, your doping for the wind becomes yet another (strong) variable which will likely only bury the effect even further into the noise. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm wondering if you will need to lengthen the distance or it may get tough to find differences. Lets see where it leads... Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, he is shooting these groups at 50yds. He could use 1-200yds without issue. If he were to stretch out further, he could simply use the vertical dispersion for evaluation. Or better yet, instead of worrying about the "noise" or variable of the shooter and his groups, rely instead on the velocity differences. Using the ES or SD would be so much easier than trying to figure out what was a "called flyer", wind, rifle, etc etc influence. |
|
Quoted:
Here is a specific case, me. No matter what I do, I cannot seem to get below about 0.5 MOA when shooting at 200 yards or less. Farther is worse but even up close where wind is less important, that is about as good as it gets for me,... ever. My guess is flash hole deburring MAYBE, just maybe worth 0.1 MOA if I could find it in the "noise". This is just a guess. Certainly, it is not 1 MOA, nor even 0.5 MOA. Remember, all the other sources of error are still present and still manifest in the data. I am just eliminating the one error. Here are the numbers for my guesses: Error....................Group Reduction..............Size (MOA).................(MOA) 0.000..................0.500 0.100..................0.490 ( a group size reduction of only 0.01 MOA, )I remember being very disappointed in the results of the test because prep was so much work. I still do it when I feel like it but it is not de rigueur for me. You might guess it's worth 0.25 MOA but my vague recollection from my testing was it was unimportant (I could not measure the effect). I remember testing unmodified brass versus deburred flash holes, uniformed primer pockets and turned case necks. The morals of all these numbers - Work the big things first. Don't sweat the small stuff. (Flash hole deburring is definitely small stuff.) I wish you best of luck and hope you have fun in your testing. Perhaps, you will see something I missed in my tests. Take 50-100 and deburr them and another don't. Run them over a chronograph and look at the ES. Use the ES difference to run it thru a BC and it'll tell you the MOA difference (or not). I seem to remember you prefer the SD of a load, so use that if you wish. With those numbers, you can decide if its worth it for you or not. |
|
Ideally, if you want to lock this down just to what difference deburring/uniforming makes, you need to use a Teslong bore scope and isolate all the cases that need deburred/uniformed and use them for your test...Shoot them along side like cases that have been deburred/uniformed and compare...
Very easy to see what is going on inside a case with a borescope... Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
If you really want to see what this deburring is worth (or not) load up 50 or better yet 100 rounds of your favorite load. Take 50-100 and deburr them and another don't. Run them over a chronograph and look at the ES. Use the ES difference to run it thru a BC and it'll tell you the MOA difference (or not). I seem to remember you prefer the SD of a load, so use that if you wish. With those numbers, you can decide if its worth it for you or not. I got started on this insanity by reading the Sinclair publication. What I did not fully understand at the time was that unless you are a benchrest shooter with tiny groups and are looking for marginally smaller groups, this stuff doesn't really help. The good news is, it doesn't hurt. I only do it every now and then just for fun, not because it is needed. I think better advice for most shooters is to spend the time practicing - dry fire or live fire with wind reading as an emphasis. |
|
Quoted:
Ideally, if you want to lock this down just to what difference deburring/uniforming makes, you need to use a Teslong bore scope and isolate all the cases that need deburred/uniformed and use them for your test...Shoot them along side like cases that have been deburred/uniformed and compare... |
|
Quoted: Amazing photos. What's funny is how little difference it makes. I thought it would be more important than it appears to be. Correct, but do enough "little" things that make a "little" difference and suddenly they add up to making a noticeable difference....  Or not...
|
|
Quoted:
BTDT I got started on this insanity by reading the Sinclair publication. What I did not fully understand at the time was that unless you are a benchrest shooter with tiny groups and are looking for marginally smaller groups, this stuff doesn't really help. The good news is, it doesn't hurt. I only do it every now and then just for fun, not because it is needed. I think better advice for most shooters is to spend the time practicing - dry fire or live fire with wind reading as an emphasis. Quoted:
Quoted:
If you really want to see what this deburring is worth (or not) load up 50 or better yet 100 rounds of your favorite load. Take 50-100 and deburr them and another don't. Run them over a chronograph and look at the ES. Use the ES difference to run it thru a BC and it'll tell you the MOA difference (or not). I seem to remember you prefer the SD of a load, so use that if you wish. With those numbers, you can decide if its worth it for you or not. I got started on this insanity by reading the Sinclair publication. What I did not fully understand at the time was that unless you are a benchrest shooter with tiny groups and are looking for marginally smaller groups, this stuff doesn't really help. The good news is, it doesn't hurt. I only do it every now and then just for fun, not because it is needed. I think better advice for most shooters is to spend the time practicing - dry fire or live fire with wind reading as an emphasis. Your comments had a lot of "maybe", "guesses" and I think's. Suggesting you either hadn't tested it or couldn't figure out what was going on with all the "noise" distracting you. That "noise" is partially due to confusion in your testing on your part. If you are going to test ammunition, test that, not the shooter or the rifle. Also you don't shoot at distance and so these things are not important to you, which is fine. But to other shooters, it is. |
|
OP:
I appreciate your work here but have several comments. If you are going to test ammunition, test that. Don't confuse the results by then testing the shooter and rifle. (Which are the 3 parts of this thing we call shooting). What I mean by that is you set out to see if deburring would have an affect for the average shooter but then used groups as a definition and then handicapped it by shooting at 50yds. Here's what I mean when I said the "average" shooter wouldn't see a difference, using your results: Since I don't shoot reduced loads and only use LC and Winchester brass for my loadings, I'll use your LC 77SMK results as an example: If I read your results properly, the Extreme Velocity difference between the not-deburred and deburred was: 83fps ES-66fps ES= a velocity ES of 17fps. When I plug that 17fps difference into a Ballistic Calculator, here's what I get: 50yds:.02" difference 300yds:.19" difference 600yds:1.42" difference 1000yds:6.81" difference So for the average shooter, at short distances, no he/she will not "see" that potential additional vertical dispersion. But for someone like me, yes. I routinely shoot AR's out to 1000yds and shoot ALOT of SR at 600yds. So yes, if I can cheaply, easily and "in-one-shot" remove the burr and this variable, I will and do. PS: My experiences are this: Since it is so easy and quick, I do deburr. "One and done." But most of the cases (I use LC and Win cases for my 223 loads) are mild, but every now and again I'll have one that seems to have a huge burr. Like the one AK shows in his pictures. That one, the one with this seemingly huge burr, is, to me a flyer at 1000yds. The one I want to remove. If I had to guess, LC, maybe 1/20 will have a big burr. Win's maybe 1/30 or so. |
|
This thread picked up a bit today I guess. To clarify a few things, only the first test was done at 50 yards. After that, all 77gr groups were done at 100 yards. I admit, group size is not everything when comparing reloading practices but it is easy to understand. I hoped that by posting results, more people would chime in and we could get a good answer. 200 yards is not possible on my property yet. Next summer, I hope to clear a lane to 200 or even possibly 250 yards. But with snow on the ground and more on the way, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. After I am finished with this test, maybe I will send it to someone with a bore scope to take some pictures of the flash holes for us after 5 firings? |
|
And I found 40 LC cases that were once fired, and my 77SMK w/ H4895 is very close to yours.
Maybe next week I can shoot them. It'll be 20/20 deburred/ not. I have them loaded, I just need to shoot them. If I do record groups. it'll be at 200yds. BTW..... the cases I did deburr, none were "crunchy." What I mean is none seemed to have much, if any, burrs. So I'm not expecting much of a difference. |
|
Quoted:
And I found 40 LC cases that were once fired, and my 77SMK w/ H4895 is very close to yours. Maybe next week I can shoot them. It'll be 20/20 deburred/ not. I have them loaded, I just need to shoot them. If I do record groups. it'll be at 200yds. BTW..... the cases I did deburr, none were "crunchy." What I mean is none seemed to have much, if any, burrs. So I'm not expecting much of a difference. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, well I wasn't sure. Your comments had a lot of "maybe", "guesses" and I think's. Suggesting you either hadn't tested it or couldn't figure out what was going on with all the "noise" distracting you. That "noise" is partially due to confusion in your testing on your part. If you are going to test ammunition, test that, not the shooter or the rifle. Also you don't shoot at distance and so these things are not important to you, which is fine. But to other shooters, it is. I cannot test below about 1/2 MOA because, as far as I can tell, that is the lower limit of what I am capable of doing. The ammo goes EXACTLY where I put it. I test at 200 yards. I shoot at 100 - 600 yards. IME, beyond 200 yards, your group sizes are determined almost entirely by the wind and your wind reading/doping skills, not by the ammo. |
|
Quoted:
The "noise" is all the other sources of error manifest in my testing. Almost all of them are larger errors than that caused by not deburring and uniforming, much larger. I cannot test below about 1/2 MOA because, as far as I can tell, that is the lower limit of what I am capable of doing. The ammo goes EXACTLY where I put it. I test at 200 yards. I shoot at 100 - 600 yards. IME, beyond 200 yards, your group sizes are determined almost entirely by the wind and your wind reading/doping skills, not by the ammo. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, well I wasn't sure. Your comments had a lot of "maybe", "guesses" and I think's. Suggesting you either hadn't tested it or couldn't figure out what was going on with all the "noise" distracting you. That "noise" is partially due to confusion in your testing on your part. If you are going to test ammunition, test that, not the shooter or the rifle. Also you don't shoot at distance and so these things are not important to you, which is fine. But to other shooters, it is. I cannot test below about 1/2 MOA because, as far as I can tell, that is the lower limit of what I am capable of doing. The ammo goes EXACTLY where I put it. I test at 200 yards. I shoot at 100 - 600 yards. IME, beyond 200 yards, your group sizes are determined almost entirely by the wind and your wind reading/doping skills, not by the ammo. Think about long range shooting this way: Once the bullet leaves the barrel, there are only three forces affecting it: the velocity pushing it forward against air resistance, gravity pulling it to earth and the wind moving it left/right. There is nothing else affecting the bullet and where it goes...….. right? So the wind affects the group size left/right. Since gravity is a constant, it is velocity that affects the vertical portion of the group. So when you start to evaluate AMMUNITION, you can avoid the human error, by examining it (ammo) this way: -the left/right (windage) portion of a group can be answered by a bullets BC. It will tell you mathematically, what that deflection is. -the up/down (elevation) portion of the group is the velocity difference between shots that "opens" the group up. Again, that can be figured independent of the shooter and mathematically. In doing so, you can remove the "noise" you talk about and look at just the ammunition. And not the shooter or rifle. And that is what this thread is about: testing a variable in the AMMUNITION, not the shooter or rifle...…..right? If you read David Tubb's books/articles he explains how to create good long range ammunition (and where I got these comments from) and considering all the championships he has won, I think he's onto something. PS: I'm not saying you are wrong in your comments about the affect a shooter has on groups. What I am saying is if you want to test ammunition, test ammunition and remove as best you can the influence of shooter and rifle. And the question in this thread (deburring or not) affects the velocity (or not) of the various shots fired, which in turn affects the vertical portion of the group. So test that, not begin questioning if/how/when a shooter is a good wind reader...……… |
|
Quoted: Sir: Think about long range shooting this way: Once the bullet leaves the barrel, there are only three forces affecting it: the velocity pushing it forward against air resistance, gravity pulling it to earth and the wind moving it left/right. There is nothing else affecting the bullet and where it goes...….. right? So the wind affects the group size left/right. Since gravity is a constant, it is velocity that affects the vertical portion of the group. So when you start to evaluate AMMUNITION, you can avoid the human error, by examining it (ammo) this way: -the left/right (windage) portion of a group can be answered by a bullets BC. It will tell you mathematically, what that deflection is. -the up/down (elevation) portion of the group is the velocity difference between shots that "opens" the group up. Again, that can be figured independent of the shooter and mathematically. In doing so, you can remove the "noise" you talk about and look at just the ammunition. And not the shooter or rifle. And that is what this thread is about: testing a variable in the AMMUNITION, not the shooter or rifle...…..right? If you read David Tubb's books/articles he explains how to create good long range ammunition (and where I got these comments from) and considering all the championships he has won, I think he's onto something. PS: I'm not saying you are wrong in your comments about the affect a shooter has on groups. What I am saying is if you want to test ammunition, test ammunition and remove as best you can the influence of shooter and rifle. And the question in this thread (deburring or not) affects the velocity (or not) of the various shots fired, which in turn affects the vertical portion of the group. So test that, not begin questioning if/how/when a shooter is a good wind reader...……… You don't know me or my background. Don't forget about other effects on the vertical group size - aiming error being one of them, inconsistent recoil/rifle support being another; variable drag,... Please tell me, though, how does one decouple the shooter, the rifle and the sights from the ammunition under test? From my perspective, it is important to distinguish between the short and mid range shooter (600 yards). The long range shooter may have different requirements unique to that case. My Club is looking to sponsor some 1,000 yard matches. I may attend those. I just need to get a 1,000 yard zero, first. I believe I know what it is but I need to confirm it. P.S. - I have tested "that". As I said earlier, in my tests "that" was irrelevant. P.P.S. - I think I have two copies of the Tubb book, one is autographed. I have the videos, too.  Everything I do, I test.
|
|
Quoted: Thanks for the feedback. You don't know me or my shooting or technical backgrounds. Don't forget about other effects on the vertical group size - aiming error being one of them, inconsistent recoil/rifle support being another; variable drag,... Please tell me, though, how does one decouple the shooter, the rifle and the sights from the ammunition under test? From my perspective, it is important to distinguish between the short and mid range shooter (600 yards). The long range shooter may have different requirements unique to that case. My Club is looking to sponsor some 1,000 yard matches. I may attend those. I just need to get a 1,000 yard zero, first. I believe I know what it is but I need to confirm it. P.S. - I have tested "that". As I said earlier, in my tests "that" was irrelevant. P.P.S. - I think I have two copies of the Tubb book, one is autographed. I have the videos, too. Everything I do, I test.This thread isn't about, say to use one of your examples, testing different supports for the rifle, it's about whatever affect deburring the primer holes have. So let's test that in an accurate way and not be distracted by other issues. I just explained how to decouple the shooter and rifle from the ammunition..... you quoted me. It's the second paragraph in your quote of my post. Well, if you mean that these effects are present in any shooting distance, then yes, you are correct. And of course they become more pronounced or visible the further out you shoot. I "did the math" in a previous post, one can read that and decide if the effect matters to them. Since you have his videos, then you know he doesn't even look at the lateral dispersion due to the wind, he looks at the vertical when shooting groups at distance. So then, unless you disagree with him, why are we discussing this? In the mean time, do you have something helpful to add to the topic of this thread? I'm halfway thru my testing of burred/deburred cartridges, and will add them maybe, this week...…. |
|
Looking forward to your results. As it is, we finally got above freezing the last few days so the snow is starting to melt a little bit. Still have over 18 inches of it in on the ground in most places. Maybe with another week of good temps, I can start doing some testing again. |
|
Quoted:
To help mitigate the influence of the shooter, wind, etc, you can round robin fire the loads being tested. Seems you are always firing the control before the test rounds or is that just the way your posting the results? I have avoided doing round Robin due to the brass being indistinguishable visually and getting 1 mixed up with the other would ruin the test. I could, in theory do it, mark the brass, load 1 at a time, find the brass after every shot and store it. It would definitely make the test take much longer. Lol |
Armory Sponsor