What do you consider Long Range

[nomosendero]

nomosendero
  A shot at 150+ might need alot of guess work if you got a very stiff wind! But I guess your a pro that gets everything purfect every time! Normally for me with out a gusty/ changing wind everything under 300 yard is cake! After that even a breeze will affect where your bullet goes! As a hunter I like to take all the what if's out of my shot as possible ie get close, take a good rest, take a shot I know will kill quickly! If it don't feel right the trigger doesn't get pulled. Thats just the way I hunt. Now if I'm just punching paper thats a whole different thing!

It is good to be back, my part of the World was devasted by an ice storm & I was without electricity for almost 2 weeks & still don't have a phone line for my PC. I have been viewing this from my work laptop, but company security
concerns will not allow me to register to a forum. I am using my Wife's computer at her work place. I think we will be back on line in another couple of days.

I have noticed in years past that if someone is sick, injured,whatever & cannot get on the forum for a while that someone will take a cheap shot, figuring they can without a reply. I see you reopened this thread just for that.

No, I don't shoot for a living, but I do shoot long range alot. And I am willing to bet that I have talked about wind
more than anyone on this forum in previous threads. Yes, if windy enough as I have said alot in the past changes everything. I have seen times, esp. in WY where it was windy enough to limit shots on game to 200 yds. But a shaky
rest will limit range, mirage, all kind of variables.  And if you noticed I did not give a set range, so your response is strange, but whatever floats your boat.

[Sourdough]

I shoot a 338-378 Weatherby Accumark, and it is sighted in for 400 yards dead on.  At 100 yards the bullet croses the line of sight rising, then it crosses again at 400 yards.  So anything from 0 to 425 yards no guess work involved, just put the crosshairs on the target and shoot.  If farther than that I range it and dial the scope.  Wind is the only real problem I sometimes have.

[Don Fischer]

I think there's a difference between what someone might consider long range and what is long range. The fact that someone is competent to shoot at 500+ yds does not mean it's not long range. And the fact that some is not competent at 200yds does not make that long range either.

I think long range is any shot beyond a point where you can hold on the target and score a killing shot. Most high velocity cartridges run into this at 350yds and much less.  Now for most shooter's I think long range is probably less than 300yds for no reason than most people don't have access to that range to practice on and become proficient at. Therefore long range for me is dependent on the cartridge, competance at long range on the shooter.

[Coyote Hunter]

I shoot a 338-378 Weatherby Accumark, and it is sighted in for 400 yards dead on.  At 100 yards the bullet croses the line of sight rising, then it crosses again at 400 yards.  So anything from 0 to 425 yards no guess work involved, just put the crosshairs on the target and shoot.  If farther than that I range it and dial the scope.  Wind is the only real problem I sometimes have.

Sorry, but I just can’t make your load work as claimed.  Gotta call “BS” on this one unless you are shooting magic bullets.

Even if I take a high BC bullet, such as a 225g AccuBond at .550, and drive it insanely fast at 3500fps, it still doesn’t shoot nearly flat enough to cross LOS at 100 and 400 yards.  More like 22 yards and 400 yards, with a mid-range rise of almost 6.5” at 215 yards.  Driven a more sane (but still faster than Nosler load data) 3200fps, it crosses LOS at around 19 yards with a mid-range rise of 7.9” at 220 yards.


[Edited to add]

Back on my computer after a day of driving and giving this matter some more thought.  Decided to try the Ballistic Calculator with first crossing point of 100 yards.  Using the same 225g AccuBond at an insanely fast (gun Kaboom fast) 3500fps, a first crossover point at 100 yards results in a second crossover point before 110 yards.  So much for 100 yards and 400 yards...

[nomosendero]

I shoot a 338-378 Weatherby Accumark, and it is sighted in for 400 yards dead on.  At 100 yards the bullet croses the line of sight rising, then it crosses again at 400 yards.  So anything from 0 to 425 yards no guess work involved, just put the crosshairs on the target and shoot.  If farther than that I range it and dial the scope.  Wind is the only real problem I sometimes have.

Sorry, but I just can’t make your load work as claimed.  Gotta call “BS” on this one unless you are shooting magic bullets.

Even if I take a high BC bullet, such as a 225g AccuBond at .550, and drive it insanely fast at 3500fps, it still doesn’t shoot nearly flat enough to cross LOS at 100 and 400 yards.  More like 22 yards and 400 yards, with a mid-range rise of almost 6.5” at 215 yards.  Driven a more sane (but still faster than Nosler load data) 3200fps, it crosses LOS at around 19 yards with a mid-range rise of 7.9” at 220 yards.


[Edited to add]

Back on my computer after a day of driving and giving this matter some more though.  Decided to try the Ballistic Calculator with first corssing pont of 100 yards.  Using the same 225g AccuBond at an insanely fast (gun Kaboom fast), a first crossover point at 100 yards results in a second crossover point before 110 yards.  So much for 100 yards and 400 yards...

Yes indeed, those numbers cannot happen. Sourdough, you may want to look at what you typed & see if at least one
of your figures in the crossover is a typo.

[LONGTOM]

a first crossover point at 100 yards results in a second crossover point before 110 yards.

Something don't seem right.
Is the second crossover a typo?


LONGTOM

[Coyote Hunter]

a first crossover point at 100 yards results in a second crossover point before 110 yards.

Something don't seem right.
Is the second crossover a typo?

LONGTOM

No. 

Get a Ballistic calculator and check it out for yourself.  The one I use most often is the free but very good "Point Blank" calculator, available at www.huntingnut.com.

I used the defaults, 1.5" scope height, 70 F, 500ft altitude.  And I was generous when I stated 110 yards - the real number is about 102 yards for a 225g .550BC bullet driven to 3500fps, over 300fps faster than Noslers max velocity...

[IOWA DON]

My .338-.378 Wea using a 225-gr Nosler Accubond is zeroed for 300 yards with the main crosshairs. It has range compensating dots (by Premier Reticles) for 400, 500, 600, 700 and 800 yards. Maximum bullet rise inside of 300 yards is a little more than I prefer, about 3.5-inches if I remember correctly, but I only use it for longer shots.

[Sourdough]

The numbers I stated are correct.   

First I was reading "Hunter's Guide To Long Range Shooting"  by Wayne van Zwoll.  I read about what he had to say, then looked at the charts he has in the book on trajectories.  Page 229, 338-378 Weatherby Mag, Weatherby 225 Barnes X, MV 3180,  Arch in Inches, 100 yards "0", 200 yards "+3.1", 300 yards "+3.8", 400 Yards "0". 

So I went and bought a Weatherby Accumark in 338-378.  I load Nosler 225gr Accubonds.  My loads crony at 3210fps.  I sighted in at 100 yards dead on.  I moved my targets out to 200 and 300 yards.  I was shooting high, but still well within my 9" circle (the size of the kill zone on a Moose or Caribou).  On out at 400 yards they are back down into the middle of the circle.

So what was printed in the book is pretty close to what I am doing.  My loads are 30fps faster, but my trajectories are pretty close to the factory loads.  Right where I think they should be.  I don't care what your computer and ballistics charts say, what I stated are in the field facts.

[Coyote Hunter]

The numbers I stated are correct.   

First I was reading "Hunter's Guide To Long Range Shooting"  by Wayne van Zwoll.  I read about what he had to say, then looked at the charts he has in the book on trajectories.  Page 229, 338-378 Weatherby Mag, Weatherby 225 Barnes X, MV 3180,  Arch in Inches, 100 yards "0", 200 yards "+3.1", 300 yards "+3.8", 400 Yards "0". 

So I went and bought a Weatherby Accumark in 338-378.  I load Nosler 225gr Accubonds.  My loads crony at 3210fps.  I sighted in at 100 yards dead on.  I moved my targets out to 200 and 300 yards.  I was shooting high, but still well within my 9" circle (the size of the kill zone on a Moose or Caribou).  On out at 400 yards they are back down into the middle of the circle.

So what was printed in the book is pretty close to what I am doing.  My loads are 30fps faster, but my trajectories are pretty close to the factory loads.  Right where I think they should be.  I don't care what your computer and ballistics charts say, what I stated are in the field facts.

Something really doesn’t compute here.

Things we know:
225g AccuBond, BC .550, 3210fps, 400 yard zero, first crossover point claimed to be at 100 yards

Things we assume:
1.5” Scope height, 500 feet altitude, 70 Fahrenheit

Things we calculate:

First crossover point = ~18 yards, not 100 yards.  Slowing the bullet down brings it in closer, speeding it up to 4500fps pushes it out to about 37 yards.  Still a very long way from 100.

Raising the BC of the bullet doesn’t work – at .800 the first crossover is only pushed out to 20 yards.  A BC of 5.0 only pushes it out to 22 yards or so.

Since those don’t work, let’s raise the scope.  Nope, a scope sitting 6” above the bore only pushes the first crossover out to about 74 yards.

Well, this works – mount the scope 6” high and push the bullet to 3750fps.  So does 3210fps with a scope height of 8.3”.

Leaving the centerline of the scope at 1.5” above the centerline of the bore also works, you just need to push the bullet to 7500fps, give or take...

Nosler’s 6th Edition basically agrees with all three of my ballistic calculators – a 225g .338” AccuBond (BC .550) at 3200fps with a 400 yard zero is about :
5.1” high at 100 yards.  Nosler 6th
5.0” high at 100 yards.  Point Blank (free at www.huntingnut.com)
5.1” high at 100 yards.  iSnipe (iPhone app)
5.1” high at 100 yards.  Ballistic (iPhone app)

Running the ballistics for a 225g Barnes ‘X’, BC .482, at 3180fps, 400 yard zero, yields a first crossover point of ... about 18 yards.  Don’t know what Wayne was smoking, but his figures don’t match Nosler’s, not by a mile.  (Well, OK, not by 82 yards...)  Nor do they match ANY other set of published ballistic charts that I can find, not even close.

In fact, here are calculated numbers (from Point Bank) for the Barnes 225g ‘X’ @ 3180fps:
+5.3” @ 100
+8.2” @ 200
+6.6” @ 300
+/- 0.00” @ 400

These numbers match up well with those from Nosler using 3200fps and the 225g AccuBond:
+5.1” @ 100
+8.0” @ 200
+6.3” @ 300
+/- 0.00” @ 400


It would be nice to have a rifle that shot a .338” 225g bullet as flat as Wayne claims, but unless you’re shooting on the moon it just isn’t going to happen.

I think you need to recheck your “field facts”.

[Coyote Hunter]

The numbers I stated are correct.   

First I was reading "Hunter's Guide To Long Range Shooting"  by Wayne van Zwoll.  I read about what he had to say, then looked at the charts he has in the book on trajectories.  Page 229, 338-378 Weatherby Mag, Weatherby 225 Barnes X, MV 3180,  Arch in Inches, 100 yards "0", 200 yards "+3.1", 300 yards "+3.8", 400 Yards "0". 

So I went and bought a Weatherby Accumark in 338-378.  I load Nosler 225gr Accubonds.  My loads crony at 3210fps.  I sighted in at 100 yards dead on.  I moved my targets out to 200 and 300 yards.  I was shooting high, but still well within my 9" circle (the size of the kill zone on a Moose or Caribou).  On out at 400 yards they are back down into the middle of the circle.

So what was printed in the book is pretty close to what I am doing.  My loads are 30fps faster, but my trajectories are pretty close to the factory loads.  Right where I think they should be.  I don't care what your computer and ballistics charts say, what I stated are in the field facts.

I guess your “pretty close to the factory loads” don’t care what Weatherby has to say on the matter, either.

Your claimed ballistics, 225g TSX, BC .482, 3180fps, 400 yard zero:
000yds = -1.5” (assumed, since you have not provided this data)
100yds = +0.0”
200yds = +3.1””
300yds = +3.8”
400yds = -0.0”

Weatherby factory load, 225g Barnes TSX, BC .482, 3180fps, 300 yard zero:
000yds = -1.5”
100yds = +3.1”
200yds = +3.8”
300yds = 0.0”
400yds = -8.9”

One thing to note here:  even with Weatherby's reduced zero range, the 100 yard trajectory is 3.1”, not 0.0”.  Pushing the zero point out to 400 yards will only make this number increase.

The Weatherby data matches up with Point Blank calculations very well.  Same load, same 300 yard zero, using Point Blank:
000yds = -1.5”
100yds = +3.1”
200yds = +3.8”
300yds = 0.0”
400yds = -8.8”

The above establishes that Point Blank calculations are  MUCH closer to factory data than your “field facts”.

If you push the zero point out to 400 yards the 100 yard elevation does not fall to 0, as you claim, but rather rises to around 5.3”.  Using Point Blank to do the calculations:
000yds = -1.5”
100yds = +5.3”
200yds = +8.2”
300yds = 6.6”
400yds = -0.0”

For what it is worth, here is the data from Nosler 6th for a .480-.489 BC bullet running 3200fps with a 400 yard zero:
000yds = -1.5”
100yds = +5.3”
200yds = +8.2”
300yds = +6.6”
400yds = -0.0”

Hmmm...  Matches the Point Blank calculations perfectly...


Achieving crossover points at 100 and 400 yards IS theoretically doable using the 225g TSX, BC .482.  You just need to push the velocity envelope a bit – to around 7625fps.  Using the 'Ballistic' iPhone app as Point Blank doesn't go beyond 4499fps:
000yds = -1.5”
100yds = -0.0”
200yds = +0.8”
300yds = +0.9”
400yds = -0.0”

Two things to note here: a) mid-range trajectories are under an inch, not 3+” as you claim, and b) no hand-held rifle is capable of achieving anywhere near the needed velocity to achieve a 100 yard first crossover.

I have been using Point Blank as my ballistic calculator for a number of years now and have found it to be an excellent tool for predicting trajectories, as well as predicting velocities using known BC’s and observed trajectories with curve matching techniques.  I have also used it to calculate BC’s using observed velocities and trajectories.  It is not perfect, but it gets pretty close.  The 'Ballistic' iPhone ballistic calculator consistently returns nearly identical data.  In no case have I ever seen a calculated discrepancy as anywhere near as large as the one between your “field facts” and Weatherby’s data.

Again, I think you need to recheck your “field facts”.

[Halwg]

That was a fun thread to read.  It gives the "new guy" some idea of what goes on around here.  And yes, from a physics standpoint, it is impossible for a bullet to cross line of sight at 100 yards and 400 yards, but the research the other guys did was very, very thorough. 

[Cement Man]

Since Sourdough cites empirical data, also noting that he was shooting high at mid-range, do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this and thereby lifting the 400 yard POI to close to center?  I've never shot one, but that load sounds like a stomper.  I've experienced some differences in practical accuracy due to recoil, stock design, etc. and at 400 yards it wouldn't take much at all.

[nomosendero]

No I don't

[Coyote Hunter]

Since Sourdough cites empirical data, also noting that he was shooting high at mid-range, do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this and thereby lifting the 400 yard POI to close to center?  I've never shot one, but that load sounds like a stomper.  I've experienced some differences in practical accuracy due to recoil, stock design, etc. and at 400 yards it wouldn't take much at all.

No.

We have to assume that the trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances which were as identical as possible, otherwise the data is useless.

Which it is anyway, because the claimed ballistics are impossible with the bullet and velocity cited. 

[Cement Man]

Well, it was rolling around in my mind and after I posted my question I rather regretted doing so as I am certainly not trying to create any angst over the issue. 
I know I do not always shoot under the most precisely comparable circumstances or measure as precisely as I should and it certainly is reflected in the results, sometimes misleading.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  This was a very entertaining and interest thread.   I enjoyed the different experiences of guys shooting at long range. It is something we get lots of here in Wy. mostly at coyotes. Have shot some deer at long distances, more elk (they are lots bigger) but mostly coyotes. Although I love long range varmit shooting, I try to get as close as possible for game. Skill, pratice, and ones rifle has lots to do with the distance we shoot. Also the country in which we hunt plays a big part.  the .338/378 Sourdough uses is an interesting rifle. One of my pals up north uses it. I am content with the .30 mag.s or .340.  I guess for me long range would be 300 yards +. My longest hit was on a coyote at 882 yards. The trouble with coyotes is they usually don't give a guy time for the range finder. When I was a kid, my neighbor went to Camp Perry. He was an excellent long range shot. To me this is the most fun of all shooting. Guys that are critical of long shots often shoot at moving game. This is far more difficult than shooting at a standing animal, at least for me. thanks for one very interesting topic.

[nomosendero]

Since Sourdough cites empirical data, also noting that he was shooting high at mid-range, do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this and thereby lifting the 400 yard POI to close to center?  I've never shot one, but that load sounds like a stomper.  I've experienced some differences in practical accuracy due to recoil, stock design, etc. and at 400 yards it wouldn't take much at all.

No.

We have to assume that the trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances which were as identical as possible, otherwise the data is useless.

Which it is anyway, because the claimed ballistics are impossible with the bullet and velocity cited. 

Indeed!! If that were not the case, then we would never be able to use any ballistic charts & there would be no logic in developing these charts. It is not about a particular gun firing the bullets, rather the vel/BC & all things relative to
a bulltes path in traj & drift. The bullet does not know or cared what fired it. 

[Cement Man]

Since Sourdough cites empirical data, also noting that he was shooting high at mid-range, do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this and thereby lifting the 400 yard POI to close to center?  I've never shot one, but that load sounds like a stomper.  I've experienced some differences in practical accuracy due to recoil, stock design, etc. and at 400 yards it wouldn't take much at all.

No.

We have to assume that the trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances which were as identical as possible, otherwise the data is useless.

Which it is anyway, because the claimed ballistics are impossible with the bullet and velocity cited. 

Indeed!! If that were not the case, then we would never be able to use any ballistic charts & there would be no logic in developing these charts. It is not about a particular gun firing the bullets, rather the vel/BC & all things relative to
a bulltes path in traj & drift. The bullet does not know or cared what fired it. 

Whoa!
You haven't and won't hear me argue against the reality of physics.  I believe in ballistics charts. We are talking about two different issues.
All I was suggesting was that maybe - since I felt that results were reported in a way that left some reasonable speculation open as to conditions/methodologies and the precision of the measurements reported - that some other condition or conditions might be in play which could have influenced the reported results to some extent.  I always respect what Sourdough posts and thought about some possible glitches in the scenario.
As CH stated "We have to assume that trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances otherwise the data is useless".  I was questioning the reported results without using the same assumption, looking for a plausible reason for the difference between the two.  I wasn't arguing your ballistics calculations or the foundation for using them.

And like I said before, I rather regretted posting my question because I wasn't trying to stir any angst with anybody and certainly not looking to dispute the science of ballistics.

"The bullet does not know or care what fired it."  In all good will and humor Nomosendero, I must quote Monte Walsh in response to that..."My oh my!"
 

[nomosendero]

Since Sourdough cites empirical data, also noting that he was shooting high at mid-range, do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this and thereby lifting the 400 yard POI to close to center?  I've never shot one, but that load sounds like a stomper.  I've experienced some differences in practical accuracy due to recoil, stock design, etc. and at 400 yards it wouldn't take much at all.

Look at you original question. "do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this" as in stated trajectory?
No I don't again.  Sorry I was a little blunt in the last post, my first with a plain NO was better.

But thanks for the input.

[Coyote Hunter]

Whoa!
You haven't and won't hear me argue against the reality of physics.  I believe in ballistics charts. We are talking about two different issues.
All I was suggesting was that maybe - since I felt that results were reported in a way that left some reasonable speculation open as to conditions/methodologies and the precision of the measurements reported - that some other condition or conditions might be in play which could have influenced the reported results to some extent.  I always respect what Sourdough posts and thought about some possible glitches in the scenario.
As CH stated "We have to assume that trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances otherwise the data is useless".  I was questioning the reported results without using the same assumption, looking for a plausible reason for the difference between the two.  I wasn't arguing your ballistics calculations or the foundation for using them.
…

If sourdough measured the trajectories using different setups or conditions, then his reported trajectories are invalid.  That would be an error in procedure.  There may have been a change which sourdough was unaware of, but in any case there is no way that the trajectory he reports anywhere near close to reality.

Start with the first crossover at 100 yards (+0.00”).  I’ve already demonstrated what it would take to get a first crossover at that range using the bullet and velocity sourdough cited.  The only way to get a first crossover at 100 yards with a 225g AccuBond (BC .550) at 3210fps and a 400 yard zero is to have the centerline of the scope 8.3” above the centerline of the bore.  I don’t think sourdough has his scope mounted that high.  Even if he does, which is highly unlikely, the mid-range trajectory is not what is claimed.

You can get to a 100 yard first crossover with a more normal 1.5” scope height if you push the bullet to around 3500fps, but your zero then is around 105 yards – nowhere near the 400 yards claimed.

sourdough claims Wane van Zwoll published similar numbers but, if so, Wayne made a mistake.

sourdough claims his trajectories are “pretty close to the factory loads” but in fact they are not, as I’ve shown.  Not close at all using Weatherby data or any other ballistic data I can find or calculate.  But hey – if sourdough can provide links to factory data that matches his claims I’ll be the first to admit  I‘m wrong.

sourdough is no longer defending his claims, and with good reason – unless he has found a way to circumvent the laws of physics - or was shooting on the moon -  his claims are completely bogus. 

He was either using very different setups and conditions to shoot at 100 and 400 yards or he just made up the trajectory numbers, possibly based on numbers he had read in van Zwoll's book. 

Draw your own conclusions. 

[Cement Man]

Look at you original question. "do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this" as in stated trajectory?

"stated trajectory" - your words, not mine.  I wasn't suggesting that recoil changed the trajectory, but perhaps the POI.  As we know, POI is one result of trajectory; but trajectory is not the sole determinant of POI as other external factors can change the POI.  Since POI is what one measures at the bullet's destination to confirm trajectory, it contributes to the results that are perceived.  Could recoil, or any other slight abberation change the 400 yard POI and thereby contribute to creating a "false read" on the perceived trajectory?

That's the best way I can state my question.  Sorry if it is a dumb question, or if I did a poor job of stating it.  And thanks for your input.

Whoa!
You haven't and won't hear me argue against the reality of physics.  I believe in ballistics charts. We are talking about two different issues.
All I was suggesting was that maybe - since I felt that results were reported in a way that left some reasonable speculation open as to conditions/methodologies and the precision of the measurements reported - that some other condition or conditions might be in play which could have influenced the reported results to some extent.  I always respect what Sourdough posts and thought about some possible glitches in the scenario.
As CH stated "We have to assume that trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances otherwise the data is useless".  I was questioning the reported results without using the same assumption, looking for a plausible reason for the difference between the two.  I wasn't arguing your ballistics calculations or the foundation for using them.
…

If sourdough measured the trajectories using different setups or conditions, then his reported trajectories are invalid.  That would be an error in procedure.  There may have been a change which sourdough was unaware of, but in any case there is no way that the trajectory he reports anywhere near close to reality.

Start with the first crossover at 100 yards (+0.00”).  I’ve already demonstrated what it would take to get a first crossover at that range using the bullet and velocity sourdough cited.  The only way to get a first crossover at 100 yards with a 225g AccuBond (BC .550) at 3210fps and a 400 yard zero is to have the centerline of the scope 8.3” above the centerline of the bore.  I don’t think sourdough has his scope mounted that high.  Even if he does, which is highly unlikely, the mid-range trajectory is not what is claimed.

You can get to a 100 yard first crossover with a more normal 1.5” scope height if you push the bullet to around 3500fps, but your zero then is around 105 yards – nowhere near the 400 yards claimed.

sourdough claims Wane van Zwoll published similar numbers but, if so, Wayne made a mistake.

sourdough claims his trajectories are “pretty close to the factory loads” but in fact they are not, as I’ve shown.  Not close at all using Weatherby data or any other ballistic data I can find or calculate.  But hey – if sourdough can provide links to factory data that matches his claims I’ll be the first to admit  I‘m wrong.

sourdough is no longer defending his claims, and with good reason – unless he has found a way to circumvent the laws of physics - or was shooting on the moon -  his claims are completely bogus. 

He was either using very different setups and conditions to shoot at 100 and 400 yards or he just made up the trajectory numbers, possibly based on numbers he had read in van Zwoll's book. 

Draw your own conclusions. 

My conclusions:

- You are mostly preaching to the choir.  I don't disagree with your technical analysis or technical conclusions regarding trajectory, in fact often learn  from your posts.
- I think you agree that the possibility might have existed for some less than perfect measurements or procedures.
- There is an unnecessary abrasiveness in this discussion.  My apologies to Sourdough for ressurecting it. 
- I should have stayed out of this one. (That's asking for a followup, huh? )

[Coyote Hunter]

"stated trajectory" - your words, not mine.  I wasn't suggesting that recoil changed the trajectory, but perhaps the POI.  As we know, POI is one result of trajectory; but trajectory is not the sole determinant of POI as other external factors can change the POI.  Since POI is what one measures at the bullet's destination to confirm trajectory, it contributes to the results that are perceived.  Could recoil, or any other slight abberation change the 400 yard POI and thereby contribute to creating a "false read" on the perceived trajectory?

That's the best way I can state my question.  Sorry if it is a dumb question, or if I did a poor job of stating it.  And thanks for your input.
 

Not a dumb question at all.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that at 400 yards the scope’s crosshairs or hashmarks or mildots or whatever will cover up a larger area.  That –could – result in aiming errors which – could -- in turn result in skewed data.  Still, 400 yards isn’t very far and if a shooter can’t do better then IMO they have no business attempting shots at game at that range.  It in no way, however, explains the claim of a first crossover at 100 yards. 

 

My conclusions:

- You are mostly preaching to the choir.  I don't disagree with your technical analysis or technical conclusions regarding trajectory, in fact often learn  from your posts.
- I think you agree that the possibility might have existed for some less than perfect measurements or procedures.
- There is an unnecessary abrasiveness in this discussion.  My apologies to Sourdough for ressurecting it. 
- I should have stayed out of this one. (That's asking for a followup, huh? )

As you surmise, we are mostly in agreement.  Although I throw out the possibility of error in the measurement procedure, I am not at all convinced that is what happened.  Sourdough’s claim that his trajectories closely match van Zwoll’s published data, which would clearly be in error, suggests other possibilities.  As does his claim that his trajectories are “pretty close to the factory loads” when in fact they are not.

On earth there is only one way to get the claimed trajectory – and that is in a fantasy.

[john keyes]

okay I have a couple of waynes books, I"m looking at one for 338/378 wby

            0    100      200        300         400

200       0     +2.8    +3.5        0            -8.4

225       0     +3.1    +3.8        0            -8.9

250       0     +3.5    +4.2        0            -9.8

[Coyote Hunter]

Here is Nosler data (#6) for a bullet with a BC of .550-.559 starting at 3200fps:

Yds = Elevation
000 = -1.5
100 = +5.1
200 = +8.0
300 = +6.3
400 =  0.0

Again, the the first crossover point occurs well before 100 yards. 

[nomosendero]

Look at you original question. "do you believe that recoil could be playing a part in this" as in stated trajectory?

"stated trajectory" - your words, not mine.  I wasn't suggesting that recoil changed the trajectory, but perhaps the POI.  As we know, POI is one result of trajectory; but trajectory is not the sole determinant of POI as other external factors can change the POI.  Since POI is what one measures at the bullet's destination to confirm trajectory, it contributes to the results that are perceived.  Could recoil, or any other slight abberation change the 400 yard POI and thereby contribute to creating a "false read" on the perceived trajectory?

That's the best way I can state my question.  Sorry if it is a dumb question, or if I did a poor job of stating it.  And thanks for your input.

Whoa!
You haven't and won't hear me argue against the reality of physics.  I believe in ballistics charts. We are talking about two different issues.
All I was suggesting was that maybe - since I felt that results were reported in a way that left some reasonable speculation open as to conditions/methodologies and the precision of the measurements reported - that some other condition or conditions might be in play which could have influenced the reported results to some extent.  I always respect what Sourdough posts and thought about some possible glitches in the scenario.
As CH stated "We have to assume that trajectories were measured under controlled circumstances otherwise the data is useless".  I was questioning the reported results without using the same assumption, looking for a plausible reason for the difference between the two.  I wasn't arguing your ballistics calculations or the foundation for using them.
…

If sourdough measured the trajectories using different setups or conditions, then his reported trajectories are invalid.  That would be an error in procedure.  There may have been a change which sourdough was unaware of, but in any case there is no way that the trajectory he reports anywhere near close to reality.

Start with the first crossover at 100 yards (+0.00”).  I’ve already demonstrated what it would take to get a first crossover at that range using the bullet and velocity sourdough cited.  The only way to get a first crossover at 100 yards with a 225g AccuBond (BC .550) at 3210fps and a 400 yard zero is to have the centerline of the scope 8.3” above the centerline of the bore.  I don’t think sourdough has his scope mounted that high.  Even if he does, which is highly unlikely, the mid-range trajectory is not what is claimed.

You can get to a 100 yard first crossover with a more normal 1.5” scope height if you push the bullet to around 3500fps, but your zero then is around 105 yards – nowhere near the 400 yards claimed.

sourdough claims Wane van Zwoll published similar numbers but, if so, Wayne made a mistake.

sourdough claims his trajectories are “pretty close to the factory loads” but in fact they are not, as I’ve shown.  Not close at all using Weatherby data or any other ballistic data I can find or calculate.  But hey – if sourdough can provide links to factory data that matches his claims I’ll be the first to admit  I‘m wrong.

sourdough is no longer defending his claims, and with good reason – unless he has found a way to circumvent the laws of physics - or was shooting on the moon -  his claims are completely bogus. 

He was either using very different setups and conditions to shoot at 100 and 400 yards or he just made up the trajectory numbers, possibly based on numbers he had read in van Zwoll's book. 

Draw your own conclusions. 

My conclusions:

- You are mostly preaching to the choir.  I don't disagree with your technical analysis or technical conclusions regarding trajectory, in fact often learn  from your posts.
- I think you agree that the possibility might have existed for some less than perfect measurements or procedures.
- There is an unnecessary abrasiveness in this discussion.  My apologies to Sourdough for ressurecting it. 
- I should have stayed out of this one. (That's asking for a followup, huh? )

"stated trajectory"- your words not mine. Yes, but with a question mark as in , is this what you are trying to get at?
This is getting silly & not worthy of further discussion.

Let's get back to the subject that is if there is a reason to keep this thread open.

[Ahab]

I think there's a difference between what someone might consider long range and what is long range. The fact that someone is competent to shoot at 500+ yds does not mean it's not long range. And the fact that some is not competent at 200yds does not make that long range either.

I think long range is any shot beyond a point where you can hold on the target and score a killing shot. Most high velocity cartridges run into this at 350yds and much less.  Now for most shooter's I think long range is probably less than 300yds for no reason than most people don't have access to that range to practice on and become proficient at. Therefore long range for me is dependent on the cartridge, competance at long range on the shooter.

Amen!

[taylorce1]

You know this question comes up quite often and we always get to a lot of ethics especially when it turns to hunting.  My longest shot to date on game was over 500 yards, and that was defiantly one that I feel I got very lucky on.  I have the ability where I practice to shoot at 1000+ yards if I want to.  Now that said I rarely practice beyond 200 yards.  I don't have all the fancy equipment to make those shots "Beyond Belief", nor do I have the time to practice at it. 

I feel that anything out to 300+/- yards is within my comfort zone for big game animals.  Beyond 300 I generally reserve that for paper and varmints.  However I'm pretty comfortable with my shooting at 400 yards as long as I have time to set up on either a good solid rest on my back pack, bi-pod or sticks with the right rifle.  The rifle I'm most comfortable with shooting is my .270 Win PH 1200, it has a cheap Bushnell Sportview 4-12X40AO scope on it but it works. 

I've taken quite a few coyotes at 400+ yards, it has accounted for pronghorn at 350+, elk at 250 and my mule deer at 500+.  Like I said I'm very confident in my ability to shoot this rifle, much more so than any other rifle I have in my safe.  I no longer use it to hunt elk but wouldn't hesitate to take it as a back up rifle on any of my elk hunting trips.

My deer took 2 shots, I saw the first shot impact the dirt low.  I adjusted and killed him with the second shot, I was still lower than I would have liked with that shot but it worked and the 130 grain bullet passed cleanly through the bottom of the rib cage about 4" up taking out the heart.  I don't think I want to repeat that shot, but I have no doubts that the cartridge and rifle combination will work farther out than I'm comfortable shooting. 

[Coyote Hunter]

I’ve said this before, although less concisely, but I’ll say it again – ‘long range’ is different for everyone and every situation.

During sight-in days at the range, when the general public is invited, it is nothing to see people that shouldn’t shoot past 100 yards.  Then there are those, often regulars at the range, for who 500 yards or further is no problem.

My favorite target at the range is clay pigeons on the 400-yard berm.  Am I confident I can cleanly kill an antelope or deer or elk at that range?  Absolutely.  The steel gongs at 500 and 600 yards get a lot of use as well.  At 500 yards ringing the steel is no big thing, although the constant crosswinds make 600 yards more of a challenge.  Would I take a poke at game at 600?  Probably not, unless wind conditions were near perfect.

My skills pale, however, to those who put more time into the long range thing.  For someone to say “Anything past XXX yards is unethical” is to ignore the uniqueness of every situation and the different levels of preparedness of each shooter with his or her particular equipment.  It never ceases to amaze me when hunters approve of a 50 yard running shot but disapprove of a 500 yard shot in perfect conditions.  I’ll take the latter, thank you very much.

[Cement Man]

I don't know how it could be said any better than that.