More accurate at 200 yards than at 100 yards?

I hesitate to offer my 2 Cents, especially amoung such learned company........but the Lord hates a coward....so here goes. Reading through this thread I couldn't find any mention that many hunting scopes are closer to parallax free at 200 than 100 yards.
If a scope had no parallax at 200 and 1/2 inch each way at 100 yards the farther groups are likely to be looking pretty good given an accurate rifle.This would account for some of these rifles shooting better than they should at longer ranges. Magic center-seeking bullets don't make sense. A bullet that goes to sleep may not continue to disperse at the initial rate, but how could it return to center? Some of the difference could be aiming error at 100, rather than increased accuracy at 200. Parallax and to a lesser extent focus could account for some of these cases.
To tack a question on a question are these claims ever made for iron sights? If so are aiming errors increased or decreased with distance with target style irons?
Dogleg
 
Hey Colorado Pete...I was actually responding to JACKS answer.....I should have clicked on his reply before I started typing. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif

Carry On /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
i have seen it before with my rifles and other peoples rifles with same shooter and different shooter...
another valid and very posible reason is sometimes i think we work harder at 200 and sometimes our bullseye size @ 200 correlates better with our crosshairs/dot than at 100..(AKA- sight picture) just my $.02 but what do i know...
Brien
 
I would agree that given "bullseye" sizes and the ability center the crosshairs better with certain setups may allow a SHOOTER to shoot a better group at a farther range, but I will never buy that a GUN/bullet can shoot a better group at 200 yards than it can at 100 yards. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Hey Mongo,

We have the same fellow at the range I shoot at!

He might have a different body and a different name, but it's the same fellow!

Anyway, what I usually do is put in a pair of the conventional foam earplugs and then put muffs over top of that. Along with going to a bench at the far end of the range, it all seems to help.

Myself, I suppose the ballistics are interesting for lots of shooters and that's fine. All I know is that the further I shoot, the worse I miss!

Just kidding, it's an interesting topic.

Regards,

Jerry.+
 
Dogleg,
Your parallax theory is the easiest for me to believe so far. But I'd think that "BR" shooters would know better. Your question about how it could return to center is what still nags me about the other answers given.

I can at least begin to comprehend the concept of a spiral path growing and shrinking as it travels. Centrifugal/centripetal forces do some strange things.
Jim

Quote:

If a scope had no parallax at 200 and 1/2 inch each way at 100 yards the farther groups are likely to be looking pretty good given an accurate rifle.
............
A bullet that goes to sleep may not continue to disperse at the initial rate, but how could it return to center?

 
I don't know 1/100th about shooting as you guys do, but I think the semantics are important here, ie, a "bigger" group vs a "better group".

A 1" group at 300 yards is a better group than a 3/4 inch group at 100 yards, but the 1" group is bigger. Its bigger on paper, but better in MOA.

Jack said the same thing a different way.

So for you guys who thick the 300mag shooter was saying his groups were smaller farther out, mayber he meant they were better, in MOA. Jack and DAA have explained the physics of how this is possible.

Lastly, I thought you guys knew a lot about guns before reading this thread, but now I just shake my head in amazement. Wow!
 
Jim in Mi:

Your point about MOA is right on and is definitely what constitutes "more accurate" at longer distances as Jack explained.

If anyone is interested, attached is a link from Saubier which shows recent - through 2003 - BR records for various number of shots at various distances. The groups are measured in inches.

The Aggregates are measured in MOA - to keep everything relative at different distances.

The topic is near the bottom of the first page - @ 2/3 of the way down - and is titled "The Best of the Best". - BCB

http://www.saubier.com/forum.html
 
Another observation, with an easy explanation...

Some loads/bullets are more consistant than others. An accurate load with a deviation of 25 fps won't mess things up too bad at 100 yards. But at 1000 yards that load is going to wreak havok on your groups vertically.

A long range shooter may choose a load that is slightly less "accurate", but more dependable/repeateable. It's a trade off. The loss of inherent accuracy is made up 1000 yards down range where slight deviations in velocity equate to measurable effects on vertical trajectory. Loads that are slightly hotter than the others will have a higher POI than the rest of the group. Likewise, slower loads will have a lower POI.

Also, deviations in velocity are not good for accuracy in general and the problems are exadurated once you start shooting longer distances.

Look it up in your reloading manuals or on your ballistic calculators. It doesn't take much of a reduction in velocity to drop a few inches at long distances.

So, a particular load may be more accurate at longer distances than it is at shorter distances. And there is more than one reason. It could be a more consistant load, or it could be bullets stabilizing. Or it could be both.
 
Very interesting thread. I won't go near the physics of this subject. However, I have a 300 H&H that, with a certain load, would predictably shoot "better" (MOA better) at 200 than 100. The rifle would usually better 1.5" groups at 100 and would usually better 2" groups a 200. As I recall the 300 yard groups were also uncharacteristically tight for a rifle that shot 1.5" groups at 100 yards. I was told the same "stabilization" theory and didn't think much more about it. I couldn't say that the groups got tighter as range increased, they just didn't open up as much as I expected them to.
 
Holy COW!!! 49 Replies so far. This goes to show the collective knowlege on this site.

If the blowhard guy knew his verbal spewing generated this much attention and collective mental energy across the internet, and across the world, his ego would skyrocket and and even his pet dog would hate him. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Good thing he will never know.
 
Hey Mike, how do you know that blowhard isn't a member here and just sitting back and chuckling his little head off. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
"I really need a better explanation than "it stabilizes after 100 yards" to believe this."

I'll give you the answer... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I'm not gonna bury it here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif This thread is three pages long for goodness sakes!

I'll post it in its own thread here in a few moments...

Dan
 
Hmmm, physics. Action and reaction, body in motion. We seem to be discussing fugoid oscillation. And then Henweigh? If we can be this diverse, then I can say that my .223 does in fact shoot tighter at 200 than 100 yards. No drugs, no meds - but it has been suggested.

BTW, the Henweigh system does not work well for removal of flourocarbon. You'll need the Piecost. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
i thought my 22-250 was doing that cuz i was shooting better at 200 than at 100. then i realized my parrellax wasn't set right for 100. i don't think that has any merit for hunting bullets, 200gr match bullets in my 308 hit the target sorta lopsided at 100 but straight on at 200, but the groups aren't any smaller, so i switched to 180's and they hit straight at 100
 
tcman, I don't know. In rural Iowa, it is difficult to find a range over 200 yards. I have shot coyotes, crows, and other unfortunate targets at over 300 paces and the bullet seemed to hit where I aimed, but I have no idea if it groups better or worse at long ranges.

The rifle is a kit-built freefloated 20" Hbar from J&T, on an Eagle lower, with a Simmons Aetec 2.8-10x44. It was not that accurate at first (sharp lands?), but now it
shoots .650" or better at 100, and about 1 to 1.1" at 200. I load my own, but it can do almost as well with WW white box 45gr BT or Black Hills 50gr BT. I have new, untested loads using Nosler 50gr BT's, because I hear their jacket is a little thicker. We'll see if it matters.

BTW, I am not new here, just a new name, I was ARTom, but the old puter took a dump and I had trouble getting back on the forums with the new setup. Good to be back.

I did recently purchase a Nikon rangefinder, so I'll be able to set up my own 300 and 400 yard tests. There's no end to the money we can spend on our passions, is there? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
No, there is no end to the money we could spend....keeps many of us out of the bars and such at night though.... wives ought to be happy about that /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
 
Back
Top