WEIGHING BULLETS TO REDUCE VELOCITY VARIATION AND IMPROVE ACCURACY

  • 2K Views
  • Last Post 02 February 2018
joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2018

 

 

WEIGHING BULLETS TO REDUCE VELOCITY VARIATION AND IMPROVE ACCURACY

 

223, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2063 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1784 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.5

 

223, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2678 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2374 fps, delta fps/gr, 23.4

 

22-250, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 1857 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1622 fps, delta fps/gr, 18.1

 

22-250, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2418 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2137 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.6

 

The largest delta fps/gr of bullet weight is 23.4; a bullet weighing 1 grain more than another would go 23.4 fps slower.

 

Weighing, segregating, loading and shooting bullets into .1 grain classes reduces delta fps to 2.34 fps.

 

In .5 gr classes, delta fps is 14.0 fps.

 

Weighing bullets and segregating them into small classes won’t improve accuracy.

 

joe b.

 

 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
RicinYakima posted this 10 January 2018

"Weighing bullets and segregating them into small classes won’t improve accuracy.

 

joe b."

 

I agree that is true PROVIDED the bullets are screened visually first. After our tests last year, I still weigh bullets only because I am running out of linotype and having to blend my own alloys out of foundry type and WW's. About 5% of the bullets will have small voids in the base or rounded driving bands compared to linotype that has almost none.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 January 2018

I've found absolutely no correlation between accuracy and any SD or ES measurement of 10 shot groups.  There is usually as much variation if not more than is mentioned between the SD and ES of identical loads tested with as many as 5 test strings. 

 

I do weight sort in .1 gr segregations with my match and HV cast bullets; the 314299 (188 gr) and the NOE 30 XCB (158 gr) .  I also am pretty anal about rejecting any bullet with any kind of visual flaw.  These weighed bullets that pass visual screening are sorted into .1 gr tubs. Out of a 400 - 600 bullet batch about 17 - 20% will be sorted out because of visual defect or they weigh to light or to heavy (usually only a few are to heavy.  Most will weight sort within .2 to .3 gr +/- of each other which are shooters.  Of the .5 to .6 gr spread I only use the top half of the 314299s in CBA Military Rifle matches or the top half of the 30 XCBs for really high velocity loads (2600 - 2900+ fps).  The bottom half of the shooters I use as foulers, sighters and practice. 

 

I have shot enough of each to know that the kind of weight sorting I do makes a difference.  The last couple years I've taken 1st at every Military match I shot in except one.  That one I didn't have any of my weight sorted match shooters left so I went with the low weight end of the foulers and sighters......ended up with too many uncalled 9s and a couple 8s, especially at 200 yards.  When you are running cast bullets at 2600 - 2900 fps you are pushing them hard.  With the match shooter 30 XCBs at 2900 fps my rifle holds 1 1/2 or better moa at 300 yards. with the fouler/sighter shooters that opens to 1 1/2 to 2 moa.

 

I've seen the results of not weight sorting too many times to think weight sorting doesn't make a difference \.

 

LMG

I have found that the best and most consistent accuracy comes

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2018

I have shot enough of each to know that the kind of weight sorting I do makes a difference.  

Larry, I recognize your need to opine, now show us your data. 

joe b.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 January 2018

Joe

 

Here's the "data" I pay attention to, which in the end is what I believe really counts;

I've won 6 matches with weight sorted bullets and lost one with non-weight sorted bullets.   The 314299 in a CBA Military rifle match shooting for score;

 

Here's the 30 XCB at 2900+ fps shooting for score;

 

 

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Larry Gibson posted this 10 January 2018

Joe

Here's the results of an extended test of the 314299 load demonstrating the need to really use a large enough sample;

Average Velocity, ES and SD Variation

 I was testing a new (to me) NOE bullet in my M39 Finn Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54R rifle I use in CBA Military Rifle matches so I thought, since I was shooting five 10 shot test strings of the same load, I would chronograph each 10 shot test string to not the subtle differences in the average velocity, ES and SDs of the same load.  Since the CBA matches I attend are for group and for score (using the 100 and 200 yard reduced 600 yard NRA HP target) I shot three of the test strings at 100 yards to also test for accuracy and to confirm the 100 yard zero.  I then would shoot the two remaining test strings at 200 yards to confirm the zero. 

I had cast the NOE bullets using a 311-205 four cavity aluminum mould out of Lyman #2 alloy.  The bullets were very uniform with few rejections during visual inspection and weight sorting.  The bullets dropped just over .313 on the bands and .302+ on the nose.  I seated and crimped the Hornady GCs and lubed them with 2500+ in a Lyman 450 with .314 H&I die. Fully dressed they weighed in right at 200 grains.  I loaded them in NS’d Norma cases over 28.5 gr of milsurp 4895 with a 1 gr dacron filler.  WLR primers were used.  That is the match load I use with the Lyman 314299 which has won me two state championships and numerous matches.  I was hoping the NOE bullet would shoot as well as the Lyman and it did.

 Many times we see posted on forum a velocity given as XXXX fps with many, if not most, not understanding that chronographed figure is not an absolute.  There always will be some variance in the average fps, the ES and the SD of any test of a lot of ammunition.  What the variance can be is not only dependent on the quality of the ammunition but also on the number of shots in the test strings.  I consider 3 shot tests as only giving an idea of what may be expected.  A 5 shot test gives a better idea but still leaves considerable room for error.  The 10 shot test is standard but even that gives an optimistic average, ES and SD fps.

The five 10 shot results;

 Average fps,  ES fps,  SD fps

1813,  34,  12

 1817,  25,  7

1812,  39,  10

1826,  42,  13

1821,  41,  13

We see here a total difference in average velocity between each test string of only 13 fps.  The ES varied 22 fps and the SD varied, between strings, 6 fps.  All of which indicates a very consistent load even considering the differences.  However, to get a much better understanding lets look at the figures for the entire 50 shot test. 

For the entire 50 shot test the average velocity was 1818 fps.  The ES was 52 fps and the SD was 17 fps.  Some would not consider those figures to be good yet given the winning record of the load it has proven to be a very good load.  Bottom line is to actually have the best idea of a loads potential it pays to test a sufficiently large sample.  The smallest 10 shot group was not with the test that gave the smallest SD and ES. This is why I don’t give much credence to less than a 10 shot test and really prefer at least three 10 shot back to back tests to confirm probable ballistics and accuracy potential. 

 

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
TRKakaCatWhisperer posted this 11 January 2018

Let me stir the pot.  The single most important thing that has improved the quality of my bullets is to have weighed bullets as they are cast.  That has directly indicated behaviors (temperature, timing, techniques) that cause variation (in more than just weight).

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Larry Gibson posted this 11 January 2018

Joe

 

I am not arguing with your data at all.  I'm just saying that your conclusion of "Weighing bullets and segregating them into small classes won’t improve accuracy" is basically incorrect because the data is only from one half of the equation that affects accuracy.  That half being measurement and data derived from the internal ballistics.  The half of the equation not addressed is the external ballistics.  You present no data referencing that half.  Your conclusion is only based on the first half, thus the error. 

 

Here is further information on how I weight sort and with some test data demonstrating the results on target which accounts for both internal and external ballistic affect on the bullets.

It depends on the weight of the cast bullet to begin with. Most weight sort thinking those bullets that weigh the same or with a +/- will shoot the best. I've learned that while that method of selection will give better accuracy it will not give "the best". As I weigh each bullet I visually inspect the bullets first. Any visual defect, no matter how small, is cause for rejection. I then weight sort to eliminate those very light bullets that passed the visual inspection but obviously have a void inside. I then put the bullets into small plastic bowls of .1 gr increments.

I'll explain with 7mm to 32 caliber bullets of 150 to 220 gr as an example. Many who weight sort will kind of "graph" the bullets out by lining them up in tenth grain increments that are consecutively numbered and straight across the bottom. What you end up with is a "bell curve" shape of bullets. The curve starts out curving up, peaks out and then curves back down almost the same as it went up. The majority of the bullets in the curve will have a 1 to 1.5 grain difference in weight. There will be some that are much lighter and a few heavier. That is what you get with "good" cast bullets.

Using a quality alloy that will cast excellent bullets is also paramount. This is why straight linotype and #2 alloy are most often used. They give excellent and uniform fill out, consistency of weight with fewer defects. Some batches of COWWs will also if the antimony and tin percentages are sufficient and balanced. Alloys in these smaller caliber bullets that give a lot of shrinkage will never cast "excellent" bullets no matter how good they look. The reason is we cannot control the shrinkage and where it occurs on each bullet. Slight shrinkages that are in different places on the bullet are undetectable by visual or even precise measurement and they mean a slightly unbalanced bullet. Might not seem like much but at higher RPM and/or at longer ranges of 200 yards and beyond it is readily detectable on target by enlarged groups and poorer accuracy. Complete fill out in the mould and minimal shrinkage is needed for a quality cast bullet that will give the best accuracy.

Weight sorting the visual inspection passed bullets with "excellent cast" bullets gives a weight sorted curve that rises sharply and then levels off with several weights (three or four of .1 grain increment) having about the same number of bullets. The curve then falls sharply to just a few heavier bullets. There is no downward "curve".

When I got the 4 cavity NOE 30 XCB mould I ran this test with Lyman #2 alloy;

I cast 531 bullets

1.9% were rejected for visual defects

8.6% weighed less than 157.7 gr (some as much as 2 gr less that obviously had internal voids I could not detect through visual inspection)

3% weighed 157.8 gr

4.5% weighed 157.9 gr

5.9% weighed 158 gr

18.7% weighed 158.1 gr

19.3% weighed 158.2 gr

21.6% weighed 158.3 gr

14.7% weighed 158.4 gr

1.8% weighed 158.5 gr.

I then loaded 10 shots of each increment (157.8 gr to 158.5 gr) to test at 300 yards.

Test rifle was my 30x60 XCB. The NOE bullets weight 164 gr +/- when fully dressed and were loaded over 53 gr of AA4350 which runs 2900+ fps out of that rifle. The incremental test loads were fired consecutive by weight with the barrel cooled, cleaned and then fouled with 2 fouling shots prior to the next increment test. The results were then graphed out for a simple visual comparison.

Click image for larger version. 

Name: Weight Sort test.jpg 
Views: 0 
Size: 71.8 KB 
ID: 192552

We see the lighter weight 157.8 and 157.9 gr bullets were not as accurate. The lighter weight bullets giving indication to probable incomplete and inconsistent fill out and/or shrinkage or that they have small void(s) in them.  The "heavy" end of the bullets (158.0 through 158.5 gr) gave consistent accuracy (precision) at very close to moa at 300 yards. I have run this test several times and with cast bullets in the 150 - 180 gr weight range I select the heavy end of the weight sorted bullets +/- .2 to .25 gr. With this weight range I use the 157.8 and 157.9 gr bullets for foulers and the 158.0158.1 bullets for sighters. The 158.2 through 158.5 are then used in matches and other tests where precision is measured.  For the best accuracy at this level of high velocity the top half (158.3 to 158.5 gr) of those selected bullets almost always give the best results, particularly at 200 and 300 yards.

With other weight ranges I like wise run a similar weight sort test and now select the heavy end of the match selected weight sorted bullets for accuracy/precision use.

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

TRKakaCatWhisperer posted this 11 January 2018

I use a filter for most posts.  "This worked for me ..." is the PASS filter - I read them carefully.  "Something won't work" gets translated into "I haven't figured it out yet.

 

 

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 January 2018

Larry Gibson uses a lotta words to say little to nothing about the topic. Larry's data sums to two ten shot 300 yard groups at ~ 4", the others ~ 3". His sample size is 1. The data is meaningless. Larry, tell us about groups with same weight bullets vs groups with varied weight bullets-that's the subject.

TRK? 

joe b.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 11 January 2018

Respectfully disagree joe.  The topic of my posts was disagreement with your blanket conclusion at the end of your opening post of; "Weighing bullets and segregating them into small classes won’t improve accuracy" .  Your study of data/statistics is commendable but as I stated in my 1st post the data you presented only related to internal ballistics.  You mention nothing about the effect on accuracy of external ballistics (flight to the target).  You drew a conclusion based on only half of the equation. Point being you can have the most uniform data (fps, ES and SDs) or the smallest "delta" yet still have very poor accuracy. 

By ignoring the external ballistic phase in your analysis you are also ignoring the fact that a difference in weight between bullets indicates a potential balance problem within the cast bullet.  That balance problem becomes apparent not in fps figures derived from chronograph data but from on target performance because it only affects the bullet in flight. Keeping cast bullets as close to the same weight is as essential to achieving the best accuracy because it helps ensure a uniformly balanced bullet, or at least as uniform as we can cast one.  If there is a .5 gr difference in weight (on a 164 gr cast bullet) we do not know where in or on the bullet that difference is if there is no sign of a defect.  That difference in bullet weight is an imbalance.  That imbalance will not show any measurable effect in chronograph data.  The imbalance will only show its effect during the bullets flight.   Weight sorting is tantamount to the same principle as is keeping bullet jacket thickness uniform to benchrest competitors.  Imbalances in bullets and their adverse affect during flight is why we shoot "groups" instead of all shots going into the same hole.  The smaller the imbalances in the bullet during flightthe smaller the group.

As to sample size joe., let's take a look at the first sample line from your 1st post;

"223, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2063 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1784 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.5"

What was the sample size for each velocity?  Was the velocities listed an average?  What was the ES of each?  Did the ESs overlap between the two velocities?

If each velocity was more than one shot was that listed velocity only from one test string?  Of how many shots in the test strings?  I posted a test demonstrating the variation of average velocity, ES and SD of five tests of the same identical load with 10 shots in each test string.  That demonstrated the variation that can occur between the average velocity, the ES and the SD of different tests of the same load.  Did you fire more than one test string of each load?  Do we know what the variation was of the two loads if you fired more than one test per load? 

Is the "Delta" figure based simply on the difference between just the two unquantified samples? 

Now I may be just "opining" and have "little or nothing to say" about my "meaningless" data but I have presented actual on target data demonstrating that weight sorting can be beneficial to accuracy if done and used correctly.  So please, you have any actual "on target data" to refute that and substantiate your conclusion of; "Weighing bullets and segregating them into small classes won’t improve accuracy"  can you post that?  Also if you can show us "data' that weight variation in cast bullets do not create imbalances and that such imbalances do not adversely affect the bullets accuracy in flight I would be glad to see that?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 January 2018

Larry, I'd be happy to send you, or anyone, all the data. Just ask.

joeb33050@yahoo.com

 

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 11 January 2018

Thanks for listing your chroni results.

WEIGHING BULLETS TO REDUCE VELOCITY VARIATION AND IMPROVE ACCURACY

 

 

 

223, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2063 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1784 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.5

 

 

 

223, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2678 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2374 fps, delta fps/gr, 23.4

 

 

 

22-250, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 1857 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1622 fps, delta fps/gr, 18.1

 

 

 

22-250, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2418 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2137 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.6

 

Preventing wobble is the best way to prevent out of balance. So I try to load all rounds more concentric and seat close to lands. A bullet that wobbles is slower down range than one that doesn't. Setting up a chroni  down close at target is best.

The 22 caliber Sierra 52gr. Match is probably the best bullet to experiment with JOE. It is more forgiving to excessive free bore such as the 223 NATO throat.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 11 January 2018

Joe

 

I'll email you.  Would be nice to see it here so all can see it though.

 

Here's another example of weight sorted 314299s at 100 yards from a CBA Military rifle match;

 

Shooting for score here so after a few shots in that raged hole at 12 o'clock in the 10 Ring I thought if I could just hold a tudge low I could move them into the X ring.........worked well for that 6 o'clock X but then the next shot dropped out the bottom for that 7 o'clock 10 (just cut the line!).....said heck with that and went back to aiming center and put the last 2 -3 into that ragged hole. 

Un weighed bullets just visually sorted will not do that. 

LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
joeb33050 posted this 11 January 2018

Thanks for listing your chroni results.

WEIGHING BULLETS TO REDUCE VELOCITY VARIATION AND IMPROVE ACCURACY

 

 

 

223, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2063 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1784 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.5

 

 

 

223, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2678 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2374 fps, delta fps/gr, 23.4

 

 

 

22-250, 5.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 1857 fps, 53 gr bullet, 1622 fps, delta fps/gr, 18.1

 

 

 

22-250, 8.5 gr Titegroup, 40 gr bullet, 2418 fps, 53 gr bullet, 2137 fps, delta fps/gr, 21.6

 

Preventing wobble is the best way to prevent out of balance. So I try to load all rounds more concentric and seat close to lands. A bullet that wobbles is slower down range than one that doesn't. Setting up a chroni  down close at target is best.

The 22 caliber Sierra 52gr. Match is probably the best bullet to experiment with JOE. It is more forgiving to excessive free bore such as the 223 NATO throat.

 

I USE THE mAGNETOSPEED cHRONOGRAPH, ATTACHED TO THE BARREL.

I started with a variety of bullets, settled on Nosler 40 and 53 gr Varmageddon, for no particular reason-the 53 has an unusually high BC. I want a LOT of data, so need just a few bullet varieties.

See the post to come on titegroup  charge vs. mv linearity.

joe b.

Attached Files

Starmetal posted this 11 January 2018

If a bullet is out of balance you're not going to fix it.  Wobble and out of balance are two different things although related.  It is possible to have a near as perfect bullet that is balanced and then start it crooked. If so then it's not going to be accurate. 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 12 January 2018

Larry, I'd be happy to send you, or anyone, all the data. Just ask.

joeb33050@yahoo.com

 

Joe

Thank you for sending me the data.  As I mentioned before, you are to be commended for the compilation and correlation of  all that data.  There certainly was a lot of data!

 

In your summation you state; "Since I have not been able to find why .22 caliber cast bullets didn’t shoot accurately; I thought I’d find out if jacketed bullets with cast bullet powder charges would shoot accurately, and why."

I am not being critical joe, just trying to help you out.  There are three phases to ballistics; the 1st phase being internal ballistics.....that which happens in the barrel.  You certainly have compiled a lot of data concerning that phase given the amount of chronographed data.  The other phase you cover very well with a considerable amount of data is the 3rd phase which is terminal ballistics.  You have that very well covered with a lot of correlated group sizes. 

What is missing and why you can't find the answer from all that data to your basic question of; "Since I have not been able to find why .22 caliber cast bullets didn’t shoot accurately" is because you have not addressed the 2nd phase of ballistics.....external ballistics or the flight of the bullet and what happens during that flight.  It is within that 2nd phase of ballistics the answer lays.

Take those 55 gr Armcour FMJBTs for example.  You can measure them every way from Sunday, you can load them to very low ES and SDs yet they will still not be "accurate".  Why Because there is imbalances in the bullets probably caused by jacket thickness that is not uniform throughout each bullet and from bullet to bullet.  They are made to atypical military accuracy standards.  The Sierra's, Nosler's, Hornady's and other commercial made bullets are held to a much higher standard of manufacture.  It is the greater imbalances probably caused by uneven jacket thickness in the Armcour bullets that are adversely affected by the rpm during the bullets flight (external ballistic phase) that is the cause of the inaccuracy.  There is a very good chapter in the later Hornady reloading manuals that explains this.

So why can't we shoot cast bullets as consistently well as we do quality jacketed bullets?  The answer is because we can't consistently cast bullets as balanced as quality jacketed bullets are balanced.  Additionally cast bullets undergo a lot more deformation during the internal ballistic phase than do jacketed bullets.  All that means the jacketed bullet exits the muzzle better balanced than out cast bullets.  Given that the better balanced jacketed bullet will be less affected during flight by the RPM and thus more accurate.

By weight sorting our cast bullets we are attempting to find the most uniform cast bullets we have.  Those will also be the best balanced cast bullets we have to begin with.  With the best balanced cast bullets we have a better chance, if we load them correctly, of negating as much of the adverse affect the RPM will have on the bullets.  Thus the more accurate on target they will be.

LMG

 

 

 

 

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • bjornb
joeb33050 posted this 13 January 2018

 

"So why can't we shoot cast bullets as consistently well as we do quality jacketed bullets?  The answer is because we can't consistently cast bullets as balanced as quality jacketed bullets are balanced.  Additionally cast bullets undergo a lot more deformation during the internal ballistic phase than do jacketed bullets.  All that means the jacketed bullet exits the muzzle better balanced than out cast bullets.  Given that the better balanced jacketed bullet will be less affected during flight by the RPM and thus more accurate.

By weight sorting our cast bullets we are attempting to find the most uniform cast bullets we have.  Those will also be the best balanced cast bullets we have to begin with.  With the best balanced cast bullets we have a better chance, if we load them correctly, of negating as much of the adverse affect the RPM will have on the bullets.  Thus the more accurate on target they will be."

LMG

Larry;

How about some data showing that your opinions expressed above may be true?

Same weight bullets vs. varied weight bullets. If there's a 10% difference in 5-shot group size, to be 95% sure of that difference, one would need to fire 55 groups with each, measure and calculate.

Go to it!

joe b.

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 13 January 2018

Joe b.

How about, before constantly requesting more data, you check out more closely what data has already been posted as in the chart/graph in a previous post.  There are 8 ten shot groups all of different weight bullets represented by their group size at 300 yards.  That is a representation of "same weight bullets vs. varied weight bullets".   The graph apply demonstrates the lighter weight bullets are less accurate.  It also demonstrates my contention that it is the top +/- .5 - .7 gr in weight variation that will prove to be the most accurate. 

The usual explanation of "weight sorting" is to segregate the bullets, by weight, into groups of .1 gr and then shoot those by group.  I have found that not to give more accurate results because the lighter weight ones still have enough imbalance in the bullet to cause inaccuracy.  While I do separate by .1 gr weight I do not then shoot by " each weight group".  I shoot the top end weight groups which will have (given a 158 to 185 gr as cast bullet) .5 - .6 gr variation or +/- .25 to .3 gr variation.  Those selected weight sorted cast bullets always give the best accuracy over the lessor weight bullets.  The reason is the heavier the bullet using the same alloy out of the same mould the better and more complete the fill out is and the less imbalance the bullet has. The axial center of bullet form will be closer to the axial center of mass which makes for a more accurate bullet.  

I haven't used 5 shot groups for many years, even multiple 5 shot groups.  The standard, even in CBA matches, is 10 shots whether for group or score.  Granted CBA commercial matches also shoot 5 shot groups in a match but 10 shot groups are also shot.  Since the 10 shot group is harder and a higher level of assurance of accuracy I use that hardest measure to get a higher assurance.....a ten shot group does give a higher assurance of accuracy than does a 5 shot group.  Might be why the 10 shot group is industry standard for test of velocity and pressure because it gives a higher "assurance".  

I have been shooting groups with weight and non weight sorted bullets for a long time now, both in matches and out of matches.  The results are always the same. Those selected weight sorted bullets always produce the best and most consistent accuracy.  I have produced and posted data supporting my contention several times now.  Should you care to disprove my contention then please do so, perhaps by conducting your own suggested test to get data you think is correct?  to ask me to do the same thing I have done over and over again using groups with less accuracy assurance when the results will be the same is, well, the definition of insanity.

Your conclusion that weight sorting does not improve accuracy based on your analysis of just the internal ballistics is still incorrect.  Again, not criticizing, just trying to help you understand. 

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 13 January 2018

Data, Larry! 8 groups at different weight bullets neither demonstrates nor proves anything! Nothing! 10 shot groups? Go

to it! 5 shot groups inferior? Tell the N(send us some money)RA! The CBA NM includes both 5 and 10 shot groups. 

Get a gun, weigh some bullets, get out there and gather some data! All you've written is about opinion, give us some data! Data, that's what I sent you. Study it, learn what data is, and FIND SOME! I can and will help with your planning.

I am criticizing, just trying to help you understand.

joe b., the DATA guy

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 15 January 2018

Not hardly.......

Nice to see you too, Frank.......

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close