Why do Idiot's buy 338 Lapua Magnums? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > Why do Idiot's buy 338 Lapua Magnums?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2012, 04:21 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: navarre,fl
Posts: 619
Liked 23 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 84

Default

what is a good group at 1000 ?my experence has been limited to .270 at 300.and im happy with 4 in

__________________
tonydewar is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 04:25 AM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have no idea what a good group at 1000 yards is, but to be anything at all accurate at any long distance, it better shoot pretty tight at 100 yards.
cottontop

__________________
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 05:52 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
bigjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL
Posts: 560
Liked 205 Times on 131 Posts
Likes Given: 164

Default

Quote:
Haven't any of "youse gize" ever bought a gun you had no practical use for????
Yep, I am the proud owner of a Remington 7600 in 30-06, I believe is a CDL and have only fired two shots through it, before I purchased it. It sits in my gun cabinet in a place of honor with my hunting rifles. (243, 270 & 35 Remington).

Quote:
I have no idea what a good group at 1000 yards is, but to be anything at all accurate at any long distance, it better shoot pretty tight at 100 yards.

That's not true. The math is called ballistics, and they are different depending on the range and purpose of the shot. Under 300 yards a flat based bullet is more accurate and beyond 300 yards a boat tail bullet will be more accurate. Now let's take barrel harmonics into count and the trajectory needed to place a bullet into a bullseye at 100 yards and that needed to do the same at 1,000 yards and you will see that a tight group at 100 yards will be way off at 1,000 yards. (a good group at 1,000 yards would be 1/2 MOA or 5 inches, 8 inches would be acceptable).

Different strokes for different purposes. (or should I say loads.)

If these people do not reload, then they do not have a clue about what they are doing.

It does seem a 338 mag at 100 yards is a bit silly and so is a 300 win mag, but that's just me.
Jim
__________________

Last edited by bigjim; 09-09-2012 at 06:00 AM.
bigjim is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 07:05 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
NM-LEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 135
Liked 8 Times on 7 Posts

Default

I own an AI AWSM .338 LM. Bought it because I like to go to shooting competitions; I also take it bear and elk hunting, but only in the case where I need to make a much longer shot than usual.

Then again, I actually know how to shoot at long distances as I was sniper qualified and am the DM on our SRT Team

__________________
"Never for one second think that I am peaceful because I have forgotten how to be violent. And never mistake my kindness for weakness."
NM-LEO is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 10:25 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
7mmstw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 277
Liked 13 Times on 10 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottontop
Yes, splane it to me too. What Txhillbilly is saying does not make sense. If a rifle can't print a cloverleaf group at 100 yards, it certainly won't shoot a tight group at longer range no matter what the caliber. If it did, there would be some new kind of math and physics involved that I am not aware of.
cottontop
Actually you can have a load that prints mundane at 100 and is phenomenal down range. When you go with no standard twists and long ojive target bullets they aren't always stable at 100, it takes them longer (3-400 yards) to actually stabilize. They will yaw or keyhole even at short range and by 3-400 yards have stabilized and print very small groups. I've had it happen to me where it shot about 1 3/4 at 100 but at 400 it was a 2 inch group.
__________________
7mmstw is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 02:56 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,729
Liked 1604 Times on 961 Posts
Likes Given: 358

Default

Plinking with a .338 is the same mind-set that makes a man buy an oversized 500 hp diesel 4wd pick-up, that he can't afford in the first place, and that he wouldn't take into the woods on a dare (that would scratch the paint) to drive to his clerk job with the county road dept.

__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 05:37 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default groups

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmstw View Post
Actually you can have a load that prints mundane at 100 and is phenomenal down range. When you go with no standard twists and long ojive target bullets they aren't always stable at 100, it takes them longer (3-400 yards) to actually stabilize. They will yaw or keyhole even at short range and by 3-400 yards have stabilized and print very small groups. I've had it happen to me where it shot about 1 3/4 at 100 but at 400 it was a 2 inch group.


So you are actually saying what I am saying. The group was smaller at 100 yards and greater at 400 yards, even if only by 1/4".
cottontop
__________________
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 05:42 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default groups

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjim View Post
Yep, I am the proud owner of a Remington 7600 in 30-06, I believe is a CDL and have only fired two shots through it, before I purchased it. It sits in my gun cabinet in a place of honor with my hunting rifles. (243, 270 & 35 Remington).




That's not true. The math is called ballistics, and they are different depending on the range and purpose of the shot. Under 300 yards a flat based bullet is more accurate and beyond 300 yards a boat tail bullet will be more accurate. Now let's take barrel harmonics into count and the trajectory needed to place a bullet into a bullseye at 100 yards and that needed to do the same at 1,000 yards and you will see that a tight group at 100 yards will be way off at 1,000 yards. (a good group at 1,000 yards would be 1/2 MOA or 5 inches, 8 inches would be acceptable).

Different strokes for different purposes. (or should I say loads.)

If these people do not reload, then they do not have a clue about what they are doing.

It does seem a 338 mag at 100 yards is a bit silly and so is a 300 win mag, but that's just me.
Jim


I think we are actually in agreement here. The group is one size at 100 yards and a larger size at 1000 yards. What I read others to say was that the group is larger at 100 yards and then shrinks down smaller at 1000 yards, which is impossible.
cottontop
__________________
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 06:55 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
awaysaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 33
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I believe Cottontop we are talking MOA and you are in inches. With that you are right, and they are right. At 100yds he was shooting 1.75 MOA but at 400yds he was shooting sub-MOA groups.

__________________
awaysaway is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 08:37 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
The_Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 564
Liked 14 Times on 14 Posts
Likes Given: 94

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmstw View Post
Actually you can have a load that prints mundane at 100 and is phenomenal down range. When you go with no standard twists and long ojive target bullets they aren't always stable at 100, it takes them longer (3-400 yards) to actually stabilize. They will yaw or keyhole even at short range and by 3-400 yards have stabilized and print very small groups. I've had it happen to me where it shot about 1 3/4 at 100 but at 400 it was a 2 inch group.
That much yawing of the bullet, (then angular correction,) is impossible.

Epicyclic Swerve
Quote:
Epicyclic swerve is the technical term for the corkscrew path that a bullet flies as its nose precesses around the flight path. Some people think that epicyclic swerve explains the observed phenomenon of angularly smaller groups at longer ranges...
The phenomenon of smaller angular groups at longer ranges was not disproven. The only thing I've shown is that if the phenomenon actually happens, epicyclic swerve is not the cause of it.
I would suggest that parallax is the culprit.
__________________
...nuff said.

Last edited by The_Kid; 09-09-2012 at 08:44 PM. Reason: typo, clarification
The_Kid is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Light magnums 1982flh80 Ammunition & Reloading 3 10-28-2011 06:10 AM
44 Magnums Ruzai Ammunition & Reloading 22 08-31-2011 04:29 PM
Police Issued .41 magnums rooster General Handgun Discussion 3 10-10-2009 04:15 PM