Teflon patching 45-70

[303carbine]

I have tried this method and had excellent results, two complete wraps going the same direction of twist.
There never was any fouling after and the bore was nice and shiny after a range session, I never had any Teflon tape foul the bore.
I fired a 420 grain hard cast into a sand bank at about two feet, the Teflon was still attached to the slug.
I don't use his method all the time, but it does work and accuracy is very good as well.

[rfd]

i'd say having the patch ride the bullet down to the target is not a good thing. we want the patch to strip off fast, right at the muzzle ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XT9Cekqb_M

[elmacgyver0]

i'd say having the patch ride the bullet down to the target is not a good thing. we want the patch to strip off fast, right at the muzzle ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XT9Cekqb_M

You may be talking apples and oranges.
He did say teflon, not paper and he said he had very good accuracy.

[rfd]

You may be talking apples and oranges.
He did say teflon, not paper and he said he had very good accuracy.

you may be right ... or wrong. we'd both need to know more of exactly what the OP is loading, and the shooting distance.

if teflon was a viable if not better slick patching material, the BPCR/TR boys would be using it in droves. ain't happening. real paper rules.

though i'm very sceptical of teflon for slick patching, i'm always open to learning something better ....

[Don McDowell]

I would have to see some example of the claim to "very good accuracy" to even begin to consider using teflon.

[Lead pot]

Being a plumber at one time I had a lot of teflon tape in the putty wagon and I wrapped some bullets with it, this was around 2000 or maybe in the 90's and I found a lot of lead in the bore. I made a post on the old shooters or maybe GBO and everybody started raving about using it and down the line out came guys using masking tape making comments how much easier it was to wrap a slick or grooved using it. :D

[country gent]

It will work done for either comes off at the muzzle or stays on to the target. But if it stays on all the way the edges cant fray or peel any, the bc is slightly lower di to friction and rifling engraving, Even the base has to maintain the same tight fold under every time. The patch that sheds at the muzzle maintains integrity better, the bullet stays more smooth sided. The recovered patches tell the story on how the loads perform.

I can see Teflon working but also see some issues unique to it. Cutting patches might be trickier, the stretch would be harder to control when wrapping, the durability if them for handling and loading may be less.

[Lead pot]

CG,
Teflon is so thin especially when you wrap it, it gets thinner and two wraps will just give you problems with lead smears because the patch will be thinner then the groove is deep. When wrapping you need several wraps to overcome this and the patch will ride down range. No worry about the patch going to 1/2 over the end because it's so thin. Teflon is far from good results. ave teflon for pipe threads what it was made for. It works good for that use.

[rfd]

i'd love to see real world BPCR results at 50, 500 and 1000 yards with teflon tape "patched" PPBs for at least the ubiquitous .45-70 cartridge, and at least a dozen shots per distance. that would be either a crow eating eye-opener or a bogus deal breaker. i'd bet big dollar$ on the later. a waste of time, effort and money.

[BrentD]

you may be right ... or wrong. we'd both need to know more of exactly what the OP is loading, and the shooting distance.

if teflon was a viable if not better slick patching material, the BPCR/TR boys would be using it in droves. ain't happening. real paper rules.

though i'm very sceptical of teflon for slick patching, i'm always open to learning something better ....


I have not tried teflon. In the end, whether it works or not, it sort of violates my whole motivation for shooting like I do.

Also, I do not believe that teflon would be legal at BPCR/TR.

Masking tape and mailing lables are other patching materials that some people like but I have not tried.

[Gunlaker]

I have not tried teflon. In the end, whether it works or not, it sort of violates my whole motivation for shooting like I do.

This is also my view of it. Although admittedly I do use LDPE wads under my PP bullets so I'm a little hypocritical :-)

Chris.

[BrentD]

I confess to the LDPE too.

[indian joe]

I confess to the LDPE too.

HDPE too?

[BrentD]

Nope. I have got my limits.

But I strongly suspect there is no plant in my "veggie fiber" wads.

[Blanket]

I made a 30 cal mold for Teflon patch in a 30-06 and at 1600 fps was sub 1 inch at 100 yds. Went back to paper

[scattershot]

Sub one inch groups at 100 yards with Teflon? How much better is paper than that?

[rfd]

i really hafta question sub MOA groups @ 100yds with a teflon patch. is this a bore rider or groove rider? what is the cartridge and what was the bullet diameter? if by "teflon" this talk means plumber's tape, and since that tape will stretch like crazy during its application, and may NOT retain that stretched state, how in the world can a constant patched slicks diameter be expected to be kept? will the tape shed or ride the bullet to the mark? i'd like a lot more explanation and show 'n' tell about teflon tape patching slicks for long range guns, and their teflon performance at all distances.

[Optimist]

Worked with .45 ACP when I tried it back in the 1980s. Handloader magazine had an article, and it caught my fancy. Had to use 3 wraps to get it to stop leading though.

[AllanD]

is this the "thin" white Teflon used for water pipe threaded joints Or the MUCH THICKER yellow or pink stuff used for natural gas pipe connections?

[rfd]

why reinvent a wheel that ain't broke? besides, it's bad enuf that i use plastic wads in a 19th century cartridge.

[Tom W.]

Geeze, if it works for him, why beat his post to death?

[country gent]

Personally I would like to know the particulars of doing this type of tape, number of wraps tension and the full thing.

[rfd]

no disrespect offered to this thread's OP. i keep hearing what appear to be sporadic glowing reports about how these taped slicks perform. maybe a taped PPB is fine for hunters or plinkers, i dunno. my only PPB interests are for BPCR/TR. honestly, if teflon tape, or any kinda tape was worth doing for paper or steel i think we'd have all been hearing about it decades ago, shooters would be using it to place or win matches, and we'd all consider it a viable alternative to onion skin. what i don't understand is how a stretchable tape can allow for a consistent PPB bore rider diameter, and how any kinda tape that might (or does) stick to a slick on its journey downrange will offer consistent long range match quality accuracy. i'd be super happy if my concerns were found to be totally incorrect (but i'd still wrap with paper - i'm old and set in my ways).

[Tom W.]

I tried patching exactly 2 boolits for my 30/30 once. I'm too clumsy to make it a hobby....so I'll stick with a lubrisizer......

[EDG]

I once asked if anyone had used powdered PTFE mixed with lube in their lube sizer. Almost all of those that responded did so with a negative reaction without a thought for actually trying the stuff.
I can still remember it took about 20 to 30 years for the simple screw in chokes to be accepted by the shotgun shooters of this country.

[rfd]

i've been waiting for years to get corrected on my thinking about taped PPBs. not by interweb hearsay, but by long range match shooters posting good match scores. <silence> still waiting to eat me some crow.

[EDG]

If you never try anything new you never learn any thing new either.
There is an old saying that tradition is often making the same old mistake over and over and over. The use of powder coated bullets is proof of that.

Who cares what long range match shooters think?
There are many more casual shooters than long range match shooters. The world will move on without them. Sports always change or die.

[Edward]

If you never try anything new you never learn any thing new either.
There is an old saying that tradition is often making the same old mistake over and over and over. The use of powder coated bullets is proof of that.

Who cares what long range match shooters think?
There are many more casual shooters than long range match shooters. The world will move on without them. Sports always change or die.

I care cause comparing casual shooters to Long range match shooters is like comparing a soccer mom in her van to a fuelly dragster driver . Not even close ,to be competitive at long range requires stuff the casual shooter does not even know exists/just sayin Ed

[Chill Wills]

Who cares what long range match shooters think?
There are many more casual shooters than long range match shooters. The world will move on without them. Sports always change or die.

Why mess with an old singleshot and lead? I see a 6.5 Creedmoor and factory ammo in your future.

[Edward]

Why mess with an old singleshot and lead? I see a 6.5 Creedmoor and factory ammo in your future.

Said it better with less words :goodpost:

[BrentD]

Said it better with less words :goodpost:


True, but it's really called the 6.5 Manbun. The term Creedmoor is reserved for those who actually know and appreciate what it means, and there ain't nothing 6.5 about it.

[Gunlaker]

Now that is funny :-)

[Chill Wills]

"Manbun"!
Now that is funny!

----------------------

Woa! I did not see your post...
Hey Chris, I hope you did not make the drive to Worland and get rained out.

[rfd]

I once asked if anyone had used powdered PTFE mixed with lube in their lube sizer. Almost all of those that responded did so with a negative reaction without a thought for actually trying the stuff.....

been there, done that. hi-tek's work fine, just not match legal for the very most part. blanket statements aren't what matters most, it's the details that count and stuff like taped PPBs and hi-teks aren't in the game i prefer to play. ymmv.

242969

[indian joe]

why reinvent a wheel that ain't broke? besides, it's bad enuf that i use plastic wads in a 19th century cartridge.

I never shot a patched boolit - but sometimes its fun watchin you fellers "discuss" this stuff

The skinny white pipe tape dont make sense to me - it would either come off partway down range or cling on till the target - gas tape maybe would work - I could see it shedding at the muzzle (perhaps?) its a whole lot different to work with - gotta ask why bother though ? A grease groove boolit would do everything the average joe wants out to 500yards and a whole lot less trouble than messing around with plumbers tape.

Seems to me paper patch has two legit places .. the long range specialists - 500-600yards and on out, OR if you got a pressing need to get more powder in a small case (38/55 40/65 etc) ORR just cuz ya wanna do it (just as legit as tother two)

Still tryin to wring the last outta me grease groove boolits before I consider graduating to high school.............[smilie=2:

[BrentD]

indian joe, you missed the boat on paper. It is suitable for all occasions and a lot less trouble that greasers.

https://i.imgur.com/YdiH6R8.jpg

But do as you wish. It's all good with me, so long as I can keep shooting PPBs for everything.

[indian joe]

[QUOTE=BrentD;4660994]indian joe, you missed the boat on paper. It is suitable for all occasions and a lot less trouble that greasers.

Brent ---

I have my grease job down pat, been doin that for over 50 years, so its all easy ..... and I like to shoot a string without cleaning - got that sorted for the most part.

However if I can find someone to show me that wrapping boolits in paper is "a whole lot less trouble than greasers" then you proly see a conversion happen!

Theres one feller in our club does it but he is single, he likes foolin around and I can beat him with grease boolits on the line any time. I met a bloke at easter that wants to spread the word (he offered me some patched boolits to try but my sharps is a little tighter bore so they wouldnt fit) he can beat me any time so the seed has been planted - hes a couple hundred miles away is the hitch.

Never say never !!!!!

[BrentD]

No doubt you do have it down pat. That's fine. Keep doing it. But you are flat wrong about paper patches - which you obviously do not have down pat. That is all.

As for showing you how easy, ask and you shall receive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AvKalQipeY

Or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1DmoZnYIQE

[Gunlaker]

I'd have to agree with Brent, depending on how you load. If you use neck tension ( i.e. any use of a sizer & expander ) then greasers are more effort. In some of my rifles I use zero neck tension and slip fit the bullets. In that case the loading effort is about the same, but greasers are messier. I've pretty much switched to dry patching which makes loading very quick and easy, and they shoot better for me that way.

When shooting, at least for me, greasers are a little bit less effort because of how I do my fouling management.

When cleaning, PP is by far the least effort.

Edit: I should add that all of my PP shooting is done with tight chambers so I don't ever size/expand the brass.

Chris.

[Lead pot]

https://live.staticflickr.com/2914/33922294460_d926c4998e.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/TFACiS)MVI_2950 (https://flic.kr/p/TFACiS) by Kurt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/leadpot/), on Flickr

It only takes 14 seconds to patch a bullet :) I cast a bunch and when I watch the news I patch :)

[indian joe]

No doubt you do have it down pat. That's fine. Keep doing it. But you are flat wrong about paper patches - which you obviously do not have down pat. That is all.

As for showing you how easy, ask and you shall receive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AvKalQipeY

Or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1DmoZnYIQE

thanks

[MT Chambers]

Some will say that long range accuracy is not important but I believe that all accuracy counts and what better way to determine accuracy than very accurate guns at long range. If it's most accurate a long range, I'm sure it will be most accurate at all ranges.

[Thundermaker]

Some will say that long range accuracy is not important but I believe that all accuracy counts and what better way to determine accuracy than very accurate guns at long range. If it's most accurate a long range, I'm sure it will be most accurate at all ranges.

Not necessarily. I've seen loads that shoot 1 1/2 moa at 100 yards but 1/2 moa at 600. Bullets do wierd stuff. The old British .303 match guns were kinda famous for it. It's why some high power shooters have a different load for each distance.

[BrentD]

Not necessarily. I've seen loads that shoot 1 1/2 moa at 100 yards but 1/2 moa at 600. Bullets do wierd stuff. The old British .303 match guns were kinda famous for it. It's why some high power shooters have a different load for each distance.

That sort of claim has wandered around for a long time. Years ago, someone put up serious money for anyone that could prove it, but no one collected.

If you think about the intellect a bullet would need to fly itself back on course after going amuck at midrange, you have to wonder who is making smart bullets.

[PHyrbird]

You all make good points. You are all correct in context, but consider, how many target shooters have the math chops to actually compute the variables in our sport of passion? Let alone the time &/or funding to create enough data to really objectively get scientific results. Only the larger ammo manufacturers have capital to make this kind of investment. The closest anyone has come to making concrete data of this quality was Mr Ken Waters' Pet Load series. I encourage all to share their opinions here & elsewhere, just keep in mind the context. My personal experience is that Teflon wrapped boolits are effective & lead very little. (given more then 2 wraps) On cast boolits the grooves make plenty of room for extra teflon & a reservoir for down the bore. Paper patch is an established but nearly lost art for over a hundred years. It works for me. I do prefer swaged cores for the patched boolits. The newer coatings have incredible potential for similar effectiveness. All the same I still know in some rifles & handguns the particular load can make the difference between a dime at 200 & a paper plate at 100yds. A very few arms can achieve MOA consistently with almost everything you feed them. My Dad's 3006 Rem760 is an example of the former, a 742 (now traded) in the same caliber was the second. Guess which I kept, Oh yeah, I gave it away ;~D
My main point is there are just too many variables; barrel, action, bedding, bullet, concentricity, charge variance, temperature, barometric pressure, heartbeat, or whether you are having a good day to make maxims. We need to share our knowledge, economy, & tips. We all make it better, often teach the manufacturers a lesson or two.

[BrentD]

Phyrbird,
I cannot agree with you. That math and analyses are pretty simple actually. Several experimental designs can be chosen from. Some effort is required, but there is nothing here that is really all that difficult other than the time.

Teflon and plastic coatings may work very well. And you are welcome to use them if you like - for your own shooting and hunting. But for many of us the purpose of using vintage rifles is to experience vintage shooting. You might just as well use jacketed bullets for all the difference it makes to me. But there is a reason I'm not interested in that, and why it is not legal for most competitions.

Everyone shoots for himself. But if you want to experience vintage shooting, you have to stick with vintage powder and vintage bullets. At least I do.

Sentient bullets don't exist. Until they do, they can't fly back to their flight path once they are off of it.

[Edward]

That sort of claim has wandered around for a long time. Years ago, someone put up serious money for anyone that could prove it, but no one collected.

If you think about the intellect a bullet would need to fly itself back on course after going amuck at midrange, you have to wonder who is making smart bullets.
I think my boolits are dumb, after being launched they tend to get lost :bigsmyl2:

[BrentD]

I think my boolits are dumb, after being launched they tend to get lost :bigsmyl2:

:bigsmyl2: :bigsmyl2: :bigsmyl2:

[Optimist]

is this the "thin" white Teflon used for water pipe threaded joints Or the MUCH THICKER yellow or pink stuff used for natural gas pipe connections?

Mine was the thin white plumber stuff. Would probably have given the thicker stuff a try if I'd been shooting .30-30 paper patched back in those days. As I said, it worked for the pistol rounds.

You're startin' to get me interested in messing with this again....

[Thundermaker]

That sort of claim has wandered around for a long time. Years ago, someone put up serious money for anyone that could prove it, but no one collected.

If you think about the intellect a bullet would need to fly itself back on course after going amuck at midrange, you have to wonder who is making smart bullets.

They don't fly back on course. They just stop spreading as much. Notice I said smaller in terms of MOA. For example, I've seen a 7mm magnum load that shot 1" at 100 yards, but 3" at 500. The 100 yard group is rougly 1MOA, but the 500 yard group is 0.6 MOA. This wasn't a one-time thing. It did it consistently. I don't know why it does it. It's something I've seen a couple times in my life.

[BrentD]

Thunder maker, think about it some more. It just won't fly. Not even in MOAs.

[Thundermaker]

Thunder maker, think about it some more. It just won't fly. Not even in MOAs.

Yes it does. It's not far-fetched at all. In the words of Elmer Keith, "Hell, I was there".

[BrentD]

Yes it does. It's not far-fetched at all. In the words of Elmer Keith, "Hell, I was there".

I await the proofs. I've been there too. Done the math also.

[BrentD]

I am doing laundry at the Whittington center with only my phone at hand at the moment, so please excuse the crudeness of this drawing and the brevity of this explanation.


Assume the firing point is at the bottom of this drawing below. A target at distance X has the aim point in the center of the X.


Shot A goes to the left side, Shot B goes to the right side. The width of the group is the distance between those 2 black lines.

A target at distance Y about twice as far as target X, behind target X will have a group twice as big (the same in MOA), ignoring additional winds and instabilities.


For the group to be smaller at distance Y, bullet A has to be smart enough to turn right after passing X. Meanwhile, Bullet B must have an IQ sufficient to know to turn left (red lines).

Personally, I do not believe bullets are that smart.

http://i.imgur.com/F2FYv0C.jpg

[Edward]

I am doing laundry at the Whittington center with only my phone at hand at the moment, so please excuse the crudeness of this drawing and the brevity of this explanation.


Assume the firing point is at the bottom of this drawing below. A target at distance X has the aim point in the center of the X.


Shot A goes to the left side, Shot B goes to the right side. The width of the group is the distance between those 2 black lines.

A target at distance Y about twice as far as target X, behind target X will have a group twice as big (the same in MOA), ignoring additional winds and instabilities.


For the group to be smaller at distance Y, bullet A has to be smart enough to turn right after passing X. Meanwhile, Bullet B must have an IQ sufficient to know to turn left (red lines).

Personally, I do not believe bullets are that smart.

http://i.imgur.com/F2FYv0C.jpg

A picture that"s worth a thousand words and done with elegance ,says it all without being overstated (OUTSTANDING) top that :bigsmyl2:

[BrentD]

Thanks Edward. It kept me busy while waiting on my laundry.

[Thundermaker]

I am doing laundry at the Whittington center with only my phone at hand at the moment, so please excuse the crudeness of this drawing and the brevity of this explanation.


Assume the firing point is at the bottom of this drawing below. A target at distance X has the aim point in the center of the X.


Shot A goes to the left side, Shot B goes to the right side. The width of the group is the distance between those 2 black lines.

A target at distance Y about twice as far as target X, behind target X will have a group twice as big (the same in MOA), ignoring additional winds and instabilities.


For the group to be smaller at distance Y, bullet A has to be smart enough to turn right after passing X. Meanwhile, Bullet B must have an IQ sufficient to know to turn left (red lines).

Personally, I do not believe bullets are that smart.

http://i.imgur.com/F2FYv0C.jpg

That's fine in theory, and theory and practice are the same in theory but not in practice. You're assuming that the dispersion happens in a perfect cone, that the bullet is pointed along a diagonal path when it leaves the barrel, and that the bullet has no initial yaw. None of it works that way. Nice diagram for a cell phone though. Bullets can yaw out of the muzzle and stabilize later in flight. If you don't believe that, watch a high speed video of a 5.45x39 7n6 bullet leaving the muzzle.

I really don't care to argue the point any further, as it's not really important to me that anyone believe that I saw what I saw. The take away from what I originally posted is that the only way to know what a load will do at a given distance is to shoot it at that distance.

[BrentD]

Yup bullets can yaw and stabilize and do all sorts of things (except think). But for sure Bullet A is moving laterally to the left as it passes target X. Ain't nothing going to tell it to start flying to the right as it passes so it will continue moving left? Theory always works on practice. Always. The laws of physics are not suspended for shooters.

[Thundermaker]

Yup bullets can yaw and stabilize and do all sorts of things (except think). But for sure Bullet A is moving laterally to the left as it passes target X. Ain't nothing going to tell it to start flying to the right as it passes so it will continue moving left? Theory always works on practice. Always. The laws of physics are not suspended for shooters.

No, the laws of physics are not suspended for shooters, that's why it baffles me how so many shooters don't understand them. The flaw in your thinking is that it assumes that, if you drew a line from the muzzle (which is pointed at the center of the target) to the bullet hole, the bullet would be traveling nose first along that straight line. That is not how dispersion works. That doesn't even make any sense if you think about it. You're saying that a projectile traveling down the tube somehow exits at a different angle than it was previously traveling down the bore. Or maybe you believe it cuts over at an angle as soon as it breaks contact with the barrel, changing the direction of its momentum in the process. Now who's talking about magic "smart bullets"?

The bullet nose is pointed toward the target along the same axis as the bore. Its forward momentum occurs along that axis. Dispersion happens when the bullet drifts sideways off this line. That drift follows more of a bell than a cone. Some bullets slow their rate of drift later in flight. Some destabilize later in flight and increase their rate of drift, exibiting less accuracy, even though they hit point first and make perfectly round holes.

You can believe what you want. It's of no consequence to me. I believe the thread was about teflon patching.

[Lead pot]

:) I been shooting for a very long time and I still have not figured out how to make a bullet curve back when it goes off on it's own wrong path then curve back to center like a baseball pitcher can make that ball return over the strike zone unless the wind pushes the bullet back into the center X or spin drift is involved. Yes a bullet with it's banana curve will rise above the line of sight and come back down to the point of aim.
But again I'm a retired plumber that used a lot of teflon tape over the years, but I used it for screwed pipe joint connections and not bullets, except one time and it didn't prove out the thing to use for slicking up bullets. Especially for using black powder. :)

[EDG]

Your problem is you do not understand the physics. Your bullets precess when fired. The rate of precession changes as the bullet settles down.
When the bullet leaves the bore the higher precession results in a faster deviation from the line of sight.
As the bullet settles down and becomes stable it deviates at a slower rate from the line of sight.
This slower deviation from the line of sight can result in groups at a longer range that are not as widely spread out as expected. This is NOT a case of a bullet veering back as you try to claim. Rather the bullet is now more stable and is deviating at a slower rate from the line of sight. Until you can comprehend that the rate of deviation from the line of sight can vary with the precession of the bullet you will never get why some of the rest of us are talking about.
Yes I have owned a rifle that does this since 1972.

As far as defining vintage shooting you are stretching the definition a bit.
Your black powder is no more vintage than any other modern manufactured powder. It is just an older recipe. It is no different than shooting your modern manufactured Sharps or Highwall replicas.
The twist in your bores does not match originals nor does the steel in your barrels or actions.
Since most of your components and equipment are recent manufacture I don't really see how you can call it vintage shooting.
You use modern boxer primed brass with non-corrosive primers right?


Phyrbird,
I cannot agree with you. That math and analyses are pretty simple actually. Several experimental designs can be chosen from. Some effort is required, but there is nothing here that is really all that difficult other than the time.

Teflon and plastic coatings may work very well. And you are welcome to use them if you like - for your own shooting and hunting. But for many of us the purpose of using vintage rifles is to experience vintage shooting. You might just as well use jacketed bullets for all the difference it makes to me. But there is a reason I'm not interested in that, and why it is not legal for most competitions.

Everyone shoots for himself. But if you want to experience vintage shooting, you have to stick with vintage powder and vintage bullets. At least I do.

Sentient bullets don't exist. Until they do, they can't fly back to their flight path once they are off of it.

[JimB..]

I was going to say basically what EDG said, in short you have to think in 3 dimensions. The bullet leaves the barrel and because of the spin it moves off axis and is traveling in a spiral, the bullet settles down over time and is then traveling along a line. Think of the first part as a cone, and not 2 lines, and notice that if you put a target anywhere in the cone that the theoretical accuracy will be worse than if you put the target anywhere beyond the cone. Tada, short range accuracy can, in some cases, be worse than longer range accuracy.

What I’ve never seen is a bullet that’s more accurate at 200 and 600 than it is at 400. My expectation is that the cone, not the one discussed above where it’s going from wide to narrow, but the one where the bullet goes from narrow at the muzzle to wide, is quite short, not even 100 meters.

[Thundermaker]

I was going to say basically what EDG said, in short you have to think in 3 dimensions. The bullet leaves the barrel and because of the spin it moves off axis and is traveling in a spiral, the bullet settles down over time and is then traveling along a line. Think of the first part as a cone, and not 2 lines, and notice that if you put a target anywhere in the cone that the theoretical accuracy will be worse than if you put the target anywhere beyond the cone. Tada, short range accuracy can, in some cases, be worse than longer range accuracy.

What I’ve never seen is a bullet that’s more accurate at 200 and 600 than it is at 400. My expectation is that the cone, not the one discussed above where it’s going from wide to narrow, but the one where the bullet goes from narrow at the muzzle to wide, is quite short, not even 100 meters.

At least two people get it.

[BrentD]

Thunder maker, if you want to talk about bells instead of cones and downrange dispersion, it only gets worse for your hypothesis, not better. When I said assuming no further downrange effects of wind or instability, I was taking the most conservative approach and your hypothesis still doesn't work.

[Thundermaker]

Thunder maker, if you want to talk about bells instead of cones and downrange dispersion, it only gets worse for your hypothesis, not better. When I said assuming no further downrange effects of wind or instability, I was taking the most conservative approach and your hypothesis still doesn't work.

Like I said. It's of no consequence to me what you believe.

[upnorthwis]

Having read this thread for a while now, it's time to throw my 2 cents in. I shot IHMSA for 25 years. With large diameter bullets, it was a common occurrence for the spotter to see the bullets flight. While shooting a T/C Contender in .357 Mag. with cast, the spotter would tell me the bullets flight was an ever decreasing spiral to the target. Another story along that line: Was sighting in a Model 70 Win in 7MM Rem Mag to go elk hunting. Our leader told us to be sighted in for 300 yd. 3 shot 100 yd. group was 3-1/2", 200 was 3", 300 was 2=1/2". I told my friends that If I saw an elk, I would have to get 300 yds. away. (shot a 6x7 at 25 yds.) These were baffling occurrences until there was an article in one of the rags that explained it just like JimB.

[Lead pot]

It's not uncommon to see a bullet in flight shooting the Sharps when the sun is right.
I seen them going to the 200 yard line and seen them enter the top of the scope vision going to the ram line at 500 mtrs or farther targets cut I must say that I have never seen a cork screw flight of the bullets I have seen go down range.
I have seen yaw, but never a cork screw flight.
Somewhere in my files I have a bullet flight that has the difference between a yaw verses pitch I will see if I can find it

[Lead pot]

That was easy.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY

[GregLaROCHE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY&feature=share

How is a smooth bore effected?

[Edward]

That was easy.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY

Well there goes my excuse for missing @700yds :veryconfu

[Lead pot]

Well there goes my excuse for missing @700yds :veryconfu

I call it fat fingering :)