Why no progress in Accuracy

  • 24K Views
  • Last Post 09 April 2016
billglaze posted this 18 May 2014

The header above is kind of a misleading statement, but I had to have a title.  To get into it:  I took note, interestedly, in Joe Brennan's work about group sizes over the last 20 or so years; he noted that we're not shooting any smaller groups now, than we were then.  (At least, that's at least one of the thrusts I got out of it.) So, recently I happened upon a copy of Maj. Geo. Nonte's book on Handloading.  It was interesting reading, kind of a later version of Phil Sharpe's book, (in fact, Maj. Nonte mentions Mr. Sharpe favorably) and I was caught by the publishing date. (Early 1970'S)  Reading Maj. Nonte's chapter about bullet casting, I was struck that we are today doing those same things, and talking about the same problems, etc. etc. An example: when I was first casting bullets, (1952, yep, just a little while ago) it was a given, according to Sharpe's book, that the bullet should be .003 over groove diameter.  The way he wrote about it, it was a figure graven in stone; not even open to question.  However, Maj. Nonte states that the bullet should be sized “no more than .0015” larger than groove diameter."  Which, at that earlier time frame, would signal a real sea-change.  Now, it's accepted as fact as, at least, a good starting point. The point I am getting to is simply this:  What has happened in those last 30 years or so, that means we should be shooting measurably better?  From Nonte's writing to now, I haven't noted any quantum leap forward in barrel technology, firearms, etc.  Many new, different powders, but that, it seems to me, is just a tiny step.  And, we're still shooting our same alloys, of course.  That's what we do:  make some kind of lead alloy into projectiles. I guess I'm trying to solve a mystery/problem that may not have a solution.  And, I have to admit I'm having a good time doing what I've always done; the frustration is simple:  I'm just not getting better at what I'm doing.  But, I'm going to keep doing it as long as I enjoy it.  Hope springs Eternal, it's said.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
MarkinEllensburg posted this 09 April 2016

Although I have enjoyed reading this thread I do not agree with the premise. I remember back when my Dad set a new CBA 100yd heavy rifle small group at just below .5” A record that stood for years. Look what the record is now. In my mind a considerable improvement over my Dad's record. I'm sure most here will agree that both groups were simply amazing. What does not show in the record books is the day my dad shot his record he shot one nearly as good at 200 yards however it had vertical stringing due to his inability at the time to deal with mirage. Something he never had issues with before that he knew of. That match taught him lots. My point is that less than 1/2 MOA accuracy is possible and has been achieved. If only we can figure out what each shooter and caster was doing right that made it happen. That is the real challenge.

Attached Files

pondercat posted this 30 August 2015

Hell, I don't even need a twitch barrel.  I twitch enough myself without one! :D  guess that makes me a twitch handed shooter. . .? .>

Seriously though Goodsteel,  that is some fantastic shooting.  I really am interested in seeing your future results.  Thanks!   Terry

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 23 August 2015

twitch barrel rifle . eh ? hey i got a couple of those myself ...

i think that twitch incorporated must have made the barrel on my ruger 3 45-70 .. it does seem to twitch even before i pull the trigger ...

ken

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

I'd have to look at my notes for the powder charge, but the 30XCB bullet is about 165 grains depending on alloy used.

Attached Files

muley posted this 22 August 2015

goodsteel, nice groups. what grains of powder and bullet weight?

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

Just fooling around John, just fooling around. I actually don't get much time at the range to work up loads. My 1909 Argentine is a twitch barrel rifle, so I screwed in a Brux precision barrel and did some quick load workup (a couple months ago). So far, LvR has been the most surprising powder in both 30 and 35XCB. Very nice powder for HV cast. I just hope they don't discontinue it.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 22 August 2015

goodsteel,

Great groups and at very interesting velocities.  Keep the groups and the information coming.

John

Attached Files

pondercat posted this 22 August 2015

Billglaze, You phrased your thoughts most eloquently.  I for one, as a new member of CBA can, and I do, appreciate that you, and I know others here do as well, take everyone's input seriously because it is often our personal experience(s) and thus personal and important to us.  I, myself, learn things all the time from novices.  It is often through eyes and thoughts of those who are not so close to the problem or project at hand that new and fresh perspectives come about and with those new perspectives ideas for innovation are spawned. Sometimes we simply need the “eyes of a child” so to speak to get us back on track. . . and still keep it fun! Terry   

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

I feel like I am making progress slowly but surely. Nothing wild and crazy you understand, but these groups were fired at a 100 yard target.  Speed was 2650 fps chronographed.  Rifle was my 1909 Argentine Mauser chambered in 30XCB. Bullet was my own design from NOE called the 30XCB Alloy was my own “House” alloy that is basically Lyman #2 cut 50/50 with pure lead and the bullets were water dropped.  Powder used was Leverevolution. 

Attached Files

muley posted this 22 August 2015

I agree with billglaze, we must enjoy our endeavor to improve our shooting and try different variables. for some people the end goal is too time consuming,and to much work to cast, weigh{ if needed} size , bump, load, and then shoot and keep a record of results so we don"t have to duplicate the load that didn"t work. Maney of the cast shooters also do not  want to shoot matches, because they believe they are not good enough to compete with the so-called top shooters. I would hope that these shooters would come to a match and find out that THEY are good shooters. We all have a competitive spirit within each of us, so I ask them to give it a try. The elusive small group shows up sometime for everyone, but we all usually shoot average groups. thanks for considering my ramblings.

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 21 August 2015

Several things are going on in my head, about now, and for a long time. First:  Even if I were able to completely and exactly copy a record holder, I would , at the best, equal his work, not better it.  IF I could exactly copy; patently, an impossibility on the face of it.So the thing is to find some combination(s) or innovation(s) that improve on performance, meaning (in my case,) accuracy: meanwhile trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, idea-wise.  Also, looking at operations that some folks say aren't helpful, others say are essential.  Try to sort out the dichotomy; go ahead, I just dare you! Like many of us here, I look at all ideas.  I do not scoff at anyone's input or ideas; I feel that they wouldn't post if it didn't work for them. The operative words are “for them.”  A great many of these things I have already tried without their working for me; however, if it seems feasible I re-visit some of them; a mixed bag has resulted, some helpful, some not so much. joeb, Duane, ric, you, John, have been all very helpful with thought starters.  You and your inputs have also been helpful  in that they seem to keep me from getting discouraged, and keep me hopeful of a dramatic improvement somewhere along the line.  Hasn't happened yet, but still........... Most important of all, at least for me:  Still hanging in there, and having FUN!  (Most important of all!) Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 21 August 2015

John Alexander wrote: Several things could be proposed as possible reasons why there hasn't been noticeable improvement in cast bullet technology as measured by better shooting in the established CBA rifle classes.  Here are some possibilities that come to mind:

  1. We have hit a natural limit as to how accurately cast bullets can be shot.  "Everything's up to date in Kansas City.  We've gone about as fur as we can go."

No, I don't believe so from what I've seen.

  1. Many cast bullet shooters are satisfied with how well we can shoot cast bullets.  Practical accuracy is good enough. That's a perfectly valid position but not one that leads to improvement.

How very true, and the large majority will never try harder to do so either.

  1. Maybe too many cast bullet shooters think the road to improvement is to just do what we have been doing but do it more precisely. Just keep turning the crank ever more uniformly instead of looking for a longer crank handle. 

I see this everywhere. There are several ways to do things. The past masters have written what it takes.... sadly very few people understood what they meant.

  1.  We don't do much real experimenting. What experimenting we do are things like trying to see if minute changes in powder charges will improve accuracy or which primer may give an edge. This is well plowed ground and while it may improve an individual load it won't lead to new knowledge about shooting better.

Copying gets you little improvement. Different methodology can get you some superior results. Most things “graven in stone” now are what is holding most back. That different methodology is what most, here and elsewhere, fight vehemently against. These folks want to see you do it in competition.... not learn how to do it.

Just some random thoughts. John   

Attached Files

DR Owl Creek posted this 16 December 2014

Tim,   The things that you, Bjorn, Larry, Mike, and others are doing is what keeps the sport/hobby interesting. That's why these threads draw so much attention. Keep it up.   Dave

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 16 December 2014

pat i. wrote: Good post. I've gone on quite a few of those cast bullet “Epic Quests For Fame and Fortune” and my only advice is to keep it in perspective so you guys don't burn yourself out like I did. Now I'm into muzzleloaders and don't give a damn if I hit the target or not. A heck of a lot more relaxing and better for my hairline. Lucky you! I started out burning BP, and I intend to end up right back there (although, I'm going to be reproducing Pope's experiments and duplexing with a false muzzle etc etc. LOL!) I will try to keep things in perspective. Right now it feels like prospecting for gold. Had a few dry claims (you never know if you don't dig) and now it's like I'm following a vein of gold. It's hard work, but the rewards make it worth it. The team we have is a good one. We are each committed to the hilt, and each are putting in our very best expertise in our own area, and we each are committed to reality, truth, and above all TRANSPARENCY and we each have skill sets that are sharply honed to the task. I am hoping that will carry us a very long ways. 

Thanks for the kind words Muley. 

Attached Files

muley posted this 14 December 2014

Gentlemen, keep up the good work. the people who question u or condemn you, do not

have the ambition or inquistive mind to enjoy the experimentation mentality.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 14 December 2014

Good post. I've gone on quite a few of those cast bullet “Epic Quests For Fame and Fortune” and my only advice is to keep it in perspective so you guys don't burn yourself out like I did. Now I'm into muzzleloaders and don't give a damn if I hit the target or not. A heck of a lot more relaxing and better for my hairline.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 14 December 2014

I couldn't agree more with Doonan's sentiments. I'm sure that everyone has their own goal, and I wouldn't dare be so bold as to state what it is for them, but I can say with absolute certainly that if we succeed in producing 5 10 shot strings of 1/2MOA at 3000FPS @100 yards, I would consider that cast bullet nirvana. I realize that's a very unrealistic goal, but a wise man once said: Pity not the man who set his goals too high and never reached them, but rather pity the man who set his goals too low and attained everything he ever desired. Alexander wept for there were no more worlds to conquer ya know. LOL! Really though, we just want to see how far we can push a cast lead bullet sans paper, full length gas check, or copper enhanced alloy (which are all very viable methods of attaining ludicrous speeds from cast projectiles). When Bjornb hit 2850 sub MOA, I almost had a fit I was so excited. The full engrave breach seater I designed for use with the XCB chamber and bullet is very very intriguing. I really don't know what is possible with that tool, but we will soon find out. I'm just glad to be part of this research team, even if most of what I contribute has to do with support via gunsmithing, design and fabrication. I can easily say this is the most rewarding fascinating and downright epic project I have ever been involved with. Between myself, Bjornb, Larry Gibson, and Sgt.mike, I hope to possibly make cast bullet history. If we don't, then it will still be fascinating. I'm learning everything I ever wanted to know about shooting through the XCB project.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 13 December 2014

Goodsteel the writing testing and experimenting have become much more interesting since you guys distanced yourselves from the 3 or 4 experts that talk a lot but show a little. It's not frustration people feel when dealing with those type of guys it's called amazement and disgust.

What's the goal you guys are searching for? Do you have a velocity and acceptable aggregate group size that'll satisfy you? I harp about aggregates and will always mention them when someone posts a small group because one small group means absolutely nothing. Ed Doonan used to always tell people when they bragged about a single group “Now show me the groups before and after that one". I guess I picked up the torch.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 13 December 2014

I agree with most of what has been said here. However, I am working constantly with 3 other cast bullet shooters to push the speed envelope, but do it for real. With proof. I have created the XCB rifle projects for this purpose specifically, and progress is being made. The XCB project encompasses rifles, a bullet design, breach seater, custom dies, machine rest, lube, you name it. We have obtained subMOA accuracy at 2800FPS and it has been very carefully documented both on the castboolit site and (since the BS got too deep to wade through) the NOE bullet mold forum site. I understand the frustration shown here, but we are candidly trying to push the envelope as far as it can be pushed and document the journey. As a gunsmith, I am merely part of the support team for the likes of BjornB and Larry Gibson. There is no BS with these gents.

Attached Files

Trap4570 posted this 13 July 2014

For myself - there are many things involved in accuracy besides bullets. If everyone was shooting from machine rests without wind and changing light then the mechanical causes of accuracy could be addressed. Throw in the human element plus mother natures little tricks and the game changes.

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close