Do you need a 900 yard Load?

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Dear God Kenny, be careful who you ask this question, those that have to tolerate the "CANYON OF DOOM", otherwise know as the 900 yd octagon, are quite testy, said they're going to paint it with a laser & call in air support.

So do we need a 900 yard load, me thinks yes, possibly, maybe. This is a good question for us Creedmoor shooters both traditional on steel and especially so on paper.

So do we need a 900 yard load? Or will a 900 yard load suffice at 800, and 1000 yards.

Kenny Wasserburger

I've got a 45 2.6 & have had days where I tear it up, other days not so much, this is the same load that I went 10/10 in the match several years ago at 1023, they said they were all in the 44" 8 ring or better.

560 gr M3 BACO
1342 fps
Swiss 1 1/2

Personally, I feel there's a barrier around that distance that's causing shooters troubles.

Brian,
You took me to that target, beautiful job on the construction. The barrier thing I believe something too that.

There is I believe some sort of range of velocity in between 800 yards and 1000 where there is stability issues. I had initially thought that it was a rotational velocity issue of sort, and thought 16 twist would compensate for this perceived problem. My new 1877 in 45-100 with an original Paul Jones Money bullet shot exceptionally well at my match at 900 yards. And quite competitive at 1000. A mistake in my load for Byers showed all kinds of issues at 900 and 1000. A slower load by 15 FPS or so. So velocities do play into this.

So this got me to again thinking that a specific muzzle velocity is necessary at 900 yards for individual bullet designs. Is it rotational decay or is it forward velocity decay?

I am hoping Zack and Rick Moritz will chime in here, as I have a ton of respect for both shooters opinions on the subject.

Kenny W.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Just got off the phone with Jimbo, we were discussing this topic. Love our visits while bouncing stuff off each other

Jimbo brings up an excellent point, on bullet design I kind of let it slip my mind.

Jimbo reminded me of this conversation of Groove design of the various bullets, and our old friend Dan T. So grooves act like drag brakes at the velocities we run, this slows forward velocity plus rotational velocity. JonnyV this is where Labrador’s on the 900 yard line in a purely test medium might give us a hint of what’s going on?

Dan had come to the conclusion with the by now vast majority of us wiping these days. His butcher paper test set up from 50-250 yards that the micro mini groove bullet was sufficient for our needs if you’re getting a lube star you’re getting all the lube you need.

So the smaller grease grooves would undoubtedly slow the rate of decay of our forward and rotational decay to some degree. Just wool gathering here, yet I believe there is merit to such discussion.

KW.

[martinibelgian]

Just throwing out some thoughts, worth whatever you paid for it:

Now, that would imply that a PP bullet of similar configuration at identical velocities might have less of an issue - or a later onset. After all, less drag.

And are the holes in the target with the 'falling apart'-load as they should be, i.e. no indication of yawing or tipping? With a 16-twist shooting a bullet supposed to be stable in a 18-twist barrel, rotational decay shouldn't be an issue.

An accurate load falling apart would imply stability issues developing, so it might be useful to check the bullet holes in the target with a knwon problematic load. Stability issues would also imply a lower BC, so more elevation required - more so than would be normal from 800 to 900. Of course, it is possible that the transonic area at around 1,000-1,100 fps creates a temporary instability, which is corrected by bullet rotation afterwards when it comes back into calmer waters. But that could be enough to give the accuracy issues mentioned.

How to find out? I presume calculated BC vs. real world BC (elevation settings) could be an indication. Or shooting the load on paper at those intermediate ranges where the bullet is at 1,000 - 1,100 fps (this is solely based on the Kolbe stability calculator data).

Anyone have a load that falls apart at 900, but shoots good at 800 and 1,000? That would be a real puzzler...

I would eliminate magnus effect as that would be exactly identical for every shot.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

[quote=martinibelgian post_id=349213 time=1731050871 user_id=3092]
Just throwing out some thoughts, worth whatever you paid for it:

Now, that would imply that a PP bullet of similar configuration at identical velocities might have less of an issue - or a later onset. After all, less drag.

And are the holes in the target with the 'falling apart'-load as they should be, i.e. no indication of yawing or tipping? With a 16-twist shooting a bullet supposed to be stable in a 18-twist barrel, rotational decay shouldn't be an issue.

An accurate load falling apart would imply stability issues developing, so it might be useful to check the bullet holes in the target with a knwon problematic load. Stability issues would also imply a lower BC, so more elevation required - more so than would be normal from 800 to 900. Of course, it is possible that the transonic area at around 1,000-1,100 fps creates a temporary instability, which is corrected by bullet rotation afterwards when it comes back into calmer waters. But that could be enough to give the accuracy issues mentioned.

How to find out? I presume calculated BC vs. real world BC (elevation settings) could be an indication. Or shooting the load on paper at those intermediate ranges where the bullet is at 1,000 - 1,100 fps (this is solely based on the Kolbe stability calculator data).

Anyone have a load that falls apart at 900, but shoots good at 800 and 1,000? That would be a real puzzler...

I would eliminate magnus effect as that would be exactly identical for every shot.
[/quote]

I am not necessarily saying the load is falling apart. That would show up at 1000 yards with keyholes in the paper.

I am thinking some sort of velocity be it forward or rotational barrier or phase it being encountered.

Probably depending upon altitude, humidity and temperature also.

Kenny W.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Just throwing out some thoughts, worth whatever you paid for it:

Now, that would imply that a PP bullet of similar configuration at identical velocities might have less of an issue - or a later onset. After all, less drag.

And are the holes in the target with the 'falling apart'-load as they should be, i.e. no indication of yawing or tipping? With a 16-twist shooting a bullet supposed to be stable in a 18-twist barrel, rotational decay shouldn't be an issue.

An accurate load falling apart would imply stability issues developing, so it might be useful to check the bullet holes in the target with a knwon problematic load. Stability issues would also imply a lower BC, so more elevation required - more so than would be normal from 800 to 900. Of course, it is possible that the transonic area at around 1,000-1,100 fps creates a temporary instability, which is corrected by bullet rotation afterwards when it comes back into calmer waters. But that could be enough to give the accuracy issues mentioned.

How to find out? I presume calculated BC vs. real world BC (elevation settings) could be an indication. Or shooting the load on paper at those intermediate ranges where the bullet is at 1,000 - 1,100 fps (this is solely based on the Kolbe stability calculator data).

Anyone have a load that falls apart at 900, but shoots good at 800 and 1,000? That would be a real puzzler...

I would eliminate magnus effect as that would be exactly identical for every shot.

I am not necessarily saying the load is falling apart. That would show up at 1000 yards with keyholes in the paper.

I am thinking some sort of velocity be it forward or rotational barrier or phase it being encountered.

Probably depending upon altitude, humidity and temperature also.

Kenny W.

It is indeed a puzzling thing. Exactly why I started this thread. Got a email from Zack can’t use the range before the desert International.

Kenny Wasserburger

[Don McDowell]

But there is a pretty good chance you could get on the Tubb range at the Whittington
And would it maybe be possible to get on the CRC range

[Kenny Wasserburger]

But there is a pretty good chance you could get on the Tubb range at the Whittington
And would it maybe be possible to get on the CRC range

You’re right Don, but hard for Jon to get to those two places. Plus when was the last time we shot BPTR at Raton 2018?

Myself not as hard. But an expensive trip, just to test bullets I may resort to my own range. But nice weather for that won’t be till next May.

Desert International would be perfect to catch data for other cartridges other shooters loads. Which is the primary reason to do this anyway.

Kenny

[Don McDowell]

Just thinking out loud
But seems that to run a fairly conclusive test to find some answers it would be best to do the test without the distraction of a match either in preparation or on going
Spend as much time as needed at various yardages and conditions as needed

[JonnyV]

But there is a pretty good chance you could get on the Tubb range at the Whittington
And would it maybe be possible to get on the CRC range

You’re right Don, but hard for Jon to get to those two places. Plus when was the last time we shot BPTR at Raton 2018?

Myself not as hard. But an expensive trip, just to test bullets I may resort to my own range. But nice weather for that won’t be till next May.

Desert International would be perfect to catch data for other cartridges other shooters loads. Which is the primary reason to do this anyway.

Kenny

There were many conversations/ideas that lead up to this effort. The basic idea is as-advertised: a load shoots good then there are problems out anywhere from 800-1000 yards. Why?

My first idea was to try and get Brian Litz at Applied Ballistics to bring his huge radar unit and high speed cameras to the Ben Avery Range (about a 60 minute drive from his office) and check out what we are doing. I was reading through their website and then it dawned on me that he would never show up to one of our matches. Reason why? MONEY. We don't represent any real amount of sales for them. We cast our own bullets and so won't be buying Berger's for BP shooting anytime soon. Plus, we are barred from using AB software package in any of our matches. Some guys might subscribe to the podcasts and buy some books, but that would be about it. Not enough to justify the radar van and the crew that runs it. That van shows up at matches where hundreds of serious shooters are present. We just don't have the numbers to justify any attention...


OK. So what are they actually tracking and can we do it ourselves?

They gather velocity data out to 1000 yards (or beyond) plus high def video footage. From that, you get your BC at any distance in between which will get you wind/drop corrections. In other words, you'll know exactly how your bullet flies.

With our LabRadar's, we can get velocity data out to about 260 yards (on a good day/most of the time). I don't have the video capability to catch bullets in flight at 1000 yards. The equipment that will do that is going to run somewhere around $5000 on the cheap end. The real issue is the learning curve in using that equipment. Watching all the tutorials I can, and I really doubt that I can make this work by next April.


So what do we have left for this year? We could use the equipment we do have...

With a little coordination, we could gather five velocity readings for each shot, out to a max of 250 yards. We could also use the Long Shot target cam to get a digital photo of each group with shots numbered in order they were fired. Third, the pit crew could be watching for any "out of round" shot holes (signifying a potentially unstable load). Fourth, we could get a group size for each test lot at ranges from 800-1000 yards on paper. Last, this would be a good starting point for another round of tests in 2026 (when hopefully I would have the video angle figured out). If each shooter brought three ten shot lots to test, they would go home with a good amount of data. Interesting note about the video, it could be used to gather velocity data at the target. Several cameras have this feature. Like I said, you pay for it, and the learning curve is steep.

The basic process is that you would have a shooter with his three test groups and his spotter. They would do business as usual. A 2nd person would be assigned to monitor the LabRadar and record the 5 readings per shot (predetermined yardages). A 3rd person would be working the tablet with the Long Shot target camera (marking shots on the tablet for a digital photo and also marking shots on a paper target as well numbered in order. The target pullers would radio back on the shot holes (whether round, oval, or figure 8 shaped). The resulting data should allow a guy to double check his long range load plus accurately calculate BC and so forth.


For me to make the match at CRC (Byers?) I would need to skip the Quigley. The Raton range is pretty much out of driving range. I am still stuck with the curse of a "day job"... It would bother me a little to miss a Q, but realistically, I'm probably not going to shoot much more video there and it's not the most serious match in any event. Don't get me wrong, there are about 50-60 guys who are a serious threat to win it, but there are 400+ other shooters who are not a threat.

There is still a LOT of work that needs to go into this, and what I have laid out here are the ideas that Kenny and myself have spitballed so far. This is not all-inclusive or final by any means. We are trying to advance the sport on a shoestring. Sending guys home with a pile of usable data would be huge. At this point though, we can't use the three days before the DI, and are awaiting word on the three days after. Ben Avery might be out of consideration for this year. All ideas are welcome!

[Don McDowell]

Wind kestrels set at the firing point midrange about 20 + feet off the ground and again at the target line might give a good bit of info on why things go to pot at long distance

[semtav]

This is taken from gong shooting and subject to all the variables such as target shape, target location and target sequence, but of the 48 matches I have a record of shooting in locally, the average score was:
800 yds- 6.73 hits
900 yds - 5.92 hits
1000 yds - 4.31 hits

No wind flags except on the line.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Just thinking out loud
But seems that to run a fairly conclusive test to find some answers it would be best to do the test without the distraction of a match either in preparation or on going
Spend as much time as needed at various yardages and conditions as needed

Don it wouldn’t be during the match day or two before or after.

Kenny

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Wind kestrels set at the firing point midrange about 20 + feet off the ground and again at the target line might give a good bit of info on why things go to pot at long distance

How to collect the data? Blue tooth to phones?

Kenny W

[Kenny Wasserburger]

This is taken from gong shooting and subject to all the variables such as target shape, target location and target sequence, but of the 48 matches I have a record of shooting in locally, the average score was:
800 yds- 6.73 hits
900 yds - 5.92 hits
1000 yds - 4.31 hits

No wind flags except on the line.

Brian, that’s some interesting data. From your personal experiences.

This year for the first time in years I shot a personal best at 900 and 1000. My 900 score bested everyone.

Going to Byers this year with 1 gr less powder than I used at my match gave pretty abysmal 900 and 1000 yard scores day 1 my 900 was better than 1000, which would mirror your findings. Second day my 1000 yard score was 1 point better than 900.

So far what I am finding faster is better, contrary to what’s popularly held. Trade off comes at the expense of recoil. The effects which are cumulative over the course of 2-3 days.

I am still of the opinion that a zone occurs just before 900 yards at a certain velocity range. Speed up that zone extends further, slow Down it occurs sooner? Again this would be also rather dependent upon bullet nose configuration.,

Most top long range shooters are using a Money bullet of the M3 configuration. Be it a BACO or Jones Original. Tonight Jimbo sent me a picture of his micromini groove bullet. He did a simple weight test the bullet only carries .4 gr of lube. And he still gets a lube star at the muzzle. Btw it is an elliptical nose design cut by Paul Jones for Dan T.
Consensus would be this bullet would have much less drag than a normal Grease groove bullet. The bullet is heavy at 550 grs. Jumbo used it to win the first mile Match in his 17# 45-110.

Much to think on I wish I had kept better track of conditions when my score at 1000 bested my 900 scores. I know this year winds were worse at 1000 day two than 900 yet scores were only 1 point difference.

Kenny W.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Wind kestrels set at the firing point midrange about 20 + feet off the ground and again at the target line might give a good bit of info on why things go to pot at long distance

How to collect the data? Blue tooth to phones?

Kenny W

Don I still very much like the idea of using a kestrel to gather wind speeds accurately at the line and possibly down range even just facing down range. That has merit.

Kenny