I did mis read his post.....my bad.


What's the salt do for us though, not being a PITA just wondering.............

As of late, I zeroed my .223, .243, & 30-06 at 200 yards. I had loaded several different rounds for each & was loking for the best group for each caliber. When I found one the shot within 2 inches, I set up at 100 yards to see the difference. All three grouped again within 2 inches, but, shot high. The .223 & the .243 shot 1 inch high, the 30-06 shot 2.5 inches high. I tried something similar for my 45/70, shooting at 100 yards & then at 50 yards. The jury is still out on the later as what I have seen makes no sense.
Keep it coming...

The frame that I built holds 48 - 1 gallon bags. Each is held at two inches thick. so I end up with about eight feet of stopping power.
I use salt water because it is denser than water (about 12.5%) and the bullets perform more like they will in animal tissue. It comes closer to aproximating the penetration depth in soft tissue.

I figured that's why with the salt water......your system sounds a little more refined than mine.....


I've gotten in arguments before about using a water medium to trap bullets and judge expansion.....seems there's a few out there not willing to lend validation to it.....glad I'm not the only crazy one.....<grin>

I figure that with all things being equal the test is a valid way to COMPARE bullet performance in an identical, repeatable, cheap, easy medium....

I'd rather do it that way than trust my luck on what is written in mags or chance wounding a critter for the sake of testing a bullet........

My water jug tests have led me to some great functioning bullets over the years and have convinced me against others........

Got a whole can full of examples..........

I have been using it to study the "expansion coefficient" of bullets but there are so many variables that I find I can better predict the expansion in my box than I can in animals - those pesky critters have too many dang bones in them! You are right about testing comparative toughness though. Some bullets just fall apart and others expand nice and then there are the OTHERS - Those that just don't seem to do anything but tumble. No expansion, no deep penetration just in and tumble into the walls and blow holes in my frame! I hate them!

As I stated before.....a typical 130 Nosler Partition handload in my .270 will get from 6 to 8 jugs penetration depending on the yardage, 75 to 200 yards....and I'll find a goodly mushroomed bullet in the last jug hit......

It can be weighed and measured and compared to other types.......

My Pard and I extensively tested just about every bullet in the 240 grain class for our .50 caliber muzzleloaders that way at 100 yards and it settled us on the Hornady XTP driven with 100 to 110 grains of FFg......We've killed a boat load of deer each with that load since....

Besides it's cool blowing the heck outta water jugs.......<grin>

While I have heard the claim before, I have never subscribed to the belief that a rifle will shoot better at long ranges than at short ranges, in this case 1MOA @ 100 and 1/2MOA at 200.

This sounds like an effect of the scope rather than the bullet trjectory.

Using the OCW method of load development, I preferr to test loads at 200 yards.

44marty wrote:

While I have heard the claim before, I have never subscribed to the belief that a rifle will shoot better at long ranges than at short ranges, in this case 1MOA @ 100 and 1/2MOA at 200.

This trajectory characteristic is associated more with very low drag bullets (VLD). I've heard it described that they "go to sleep". You see it at longer ranges beyond 300 yards, e.g., you might see 1MOA at 300 yards and 3/4MOA at 500 yards.

moose2 wrote:

I preferr to test loads at 200 yards.

The longer the range the better. 200 is better than 100. I've tested loads that shot 0.5 MOA at 100 and 200 yards and most of the time at 300 yards. At 500 yards it was 3.5+ MOA. I ditched those bullets.

I do all my development at 100 tards. Then I check them at several different distances to make sure the trajectory charts are accurate. I rarely if ever shoot beyond 200 yards - at those ranges the wind plays more of a role than the bullet.

I used to not believe in the tightening of groups over distance but I've since become a believer that it does happen in certain situations.

If a bullet exits the barrel and gets tilted slightly, it will wobble off axis (yaw) until the rotation spins it back on center. To visualize this, hold a pencil or pen in the center with your fingers. Now put a finger from your other hand on the end of the pencil and rotate the end in a circle. Depending on barrel and other factors your bullet can be rotating like this until it stabilizes. Due to wind resistance, the bullet will get pushed in the direction it is pointing at the moment so it spirals outward and then inwards as stabilization takes place.

Heres a picture from another article on it to help visualize this:



Depending on how far out it takes your bullets to stabilize, different ranges of targets will be better for testing.


-DallanC

A bullet is at it's most vulnerable point as soon as it exits the muzzle !!!

If a bullet leaves the muzzle with ill effects for whatever reason it needs time to correct itself and become fully stabilized.
Even if it leaves without issue the atmospheric conditions can cause disruptions that can cause brief periods of instability.

These are a few of the reasons we sometimes hear about bullets being more consistent at a longer distance.

Here is a group I shot yesterday that is an example of a very long bullet shooting better at longer range. In the vertical direction, I typically have gotten .7 MOA with this load at 100 to 250 yards. This was shot at 500 yards and was .3 MOA