Do group sizes improve at longer distances?

**yobuck** · 01-08-2016, 12:57 PM

Many of us (myself included) have the opinion that groups shot @100 yds,
arent always the same in measurment comparison as those shot at longer distances.
For an interesting discussion on this subject go to the Long Range hunting website.
Once there scroll down to the (rifles,bullets,barrels and balistics section.
Look for the post referring to (shootings biggest) which means (misconceptions).
Then scroll down to Brian Litz responce and click onto the information he listed.
It opens up a whole new way of looking at something many of us have maybe
had a wrong opinion on.

**pdog06** · 01-08-2016, 04:09 PM

Or you could just post the link to that thread?....lol

**BillPa** · 01-08-2016, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by pdog06

Or you could just post the link to that thread?....lol

I'll help the kid out!

http://www.longrangehunting.com/foru...eption-164995/

**Robinhood** · 01-08-2016, 09:06 PM

Old timerz

**yobuck** · 01-09-2016, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Old timerz

No doubt, their apt to still use road maps also. lol

**dfrosch** · 01-10-2016, 12:38 PM

First, I'm no expert at long range shooting.

Mr. Litz's challenge thread is some interesting stuff, but I think external influences should be eliminated(read Houston Warehouse http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html ) before making any assumptions. I see some anomalies on the left side of his targets, but they might be explained by velocity differences or a change in external conditions. His first picture shows that this was done on an outside range.

It seems like the only way to gather good data would be to test a low SD load on a controlled 300 yard range. Not too many of those around.

**yobuck** · 01-10-2016, 01:29 PM

Im not sure im following your point as it might have been intended.
The shoot thru target is what im referring to. I can discount the swipes he took
at a competetors bullets for what it was. But there is no argument over how the bullets
impacted the targets.

**dfrosch** · 01-10-2016, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by yobuck

Im not sure im following your point as it might have been intended.
The shoot thru target is what im referring to. I can discount the swipes he took
at a competetors bullets for what it was. But there is no argument over how the bullets
impacted the targets.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/foru...llenge-144359/

The bottom center and bottom right groups at 300 are just expanded versions of their respective groups at 100. These seem to prove his point.

But, look at the two groups on the left. Start at the top and number the holes 1, 2, 3...

On the top group, Bullets 1, 2 and 4 appear to have travelled similar paths. Something happened to #3 between 100 and 300 yards that didn't happen to the others. At 300, it is higher and further right than the others.

On the bottom group, shots 1 and 2 are horizontal at 100, but vertical at 300. Number 3 appears to be left of 4 and 5 at 100, but right of them at 300. This group seems to have been influenced the most by both internal(velocity or BC variations leading to vertical stringing) and external(variable winds) factors and you can't make any conclusions from it.

If these variables affected this group, how do we know that they, or other variables, didn't affect the groups that seem to prove his point? A strong, steady 12 o'clock wind seems like it would expand a group and a strong 6 o'clock wind would shrink a group.

My point is: All of these variables must be eliminated to conclude that groups get angularly smaller, remain linear or get larger.

**yobuck** · 01-10-2016, 05:30 PM

Im of the opinion he shot groups both with and without the see thru target. I didnt examine them as closly as you obviously, but
he does put money where his mouth is regarding chalenges to his theory. No doubt wind can affect where the bullets land between
the 2 distances, but does that affect his theory?

**dfrosch** · 01-10-2016, 07:59 PM

Didn't read the entire thread. In his first post, he said that he had checked the loads that tumbled to determine if the paper was affecting it.

I have never understood the theory that some groups will get angularly smaller. It seems logical that groups could only get bigger. And, I tend to agree with Mr. Litz. But, as I said earlier, I'm no expert. And, I think the only way to prove or disprove his theory is to remove all the variables.