Printable View
Just been to a 200m shoot, most of us shot about 12 - 18" high when it started raining. After the rain stopped we all shot to centre again.
I've heard the saying "lights up, sights up" - but what about rain? The rain wasn't long enough to soak the stock.
Interesting- humid air is actually less dense than dry air, but that doesn't appear to have an effect on bullet drop (or not) beyond fractions of an inch, not a foot or more, especially at only 200m.
Most often the greatest effect is on the shooter as rain distorts views and distracts the shooter.
Would be interesting to hear other conjectures!
It's exactly that, the rain caused all of you to aim up, just because of the visibility. The air was a damp after the rain stopped as when it was actually raining.
never heard that in 35 years of shooting, the fact that it happened to most and not all suggests other conjecture.
any fire armcan be affected by climatic change. its the reason for composite stock. and evn if humidity does not affect the stock teperture does.
my bet is that those who shot high exposed thier wood to humidity. specifically the lower for arm to humidity.
the fact that they began shooting straight was maybe compensation for shooting high.
you said most... those whom were not affected during the rain... how was thier shooting affected when it stopped.
LE's are very sensitive to humidity, more so the forarm which influences the accuracy of the weapon.
there is a very good reason the factory coated all wood surfaces with linseed oil. done properly and regularly it has several benifits.
those shooters who shot straight, did you ask them what they do different? and what did they say.
soak that wood in hot linseed oil. stock makers and wood workers been doing it for centuries.
I learned along time ago and again in the military not to leave your weapon exposed to the elements, not just rain either.... I wonder if theres any truth to that. Even those who shoot the AR platform exercise that rule. Na... it must be a myth.
I just have a feeling they weren't exposed to that much water for that long...Quote:
Originally Posted by mike16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusty
I've seen all kinds of things. This is the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike16
rain is 100% humidity. anything less is still humidity. it does not actualy have to be submerged in water to warp the wood.I been drying wood down here in southern Aridzona for years and even more than a decade, they still measure4-6% humidity in the wood.
you paint one side with oil and it will warp the wood. so even just slathering on oil on the outside of a stock can leave the inside vulnerable to absorbing humidity. drying one side of water and not the other can warp the wood. laying the rifle wet or dry in the sun will warp the wood.
ask the people who shoot straight what they did right.. or at least observe thier behaviour.
on the plus side, crusty, god bless you for not blaming your rifle.. I think of all the humid colonies enfields were used in.....
It seems illogical that the rain would cause the point of aim to change that dramatically. I learned a lot about shooting in weather at the National Matches in 1965, where I noticed during one match the right range flag streaming left, the left range flag streaming right, the center range flag streaming up range, and the national flag behind the ranges streaming down range.
During the Navy Cup Match it seemed every time my relay did something (it started with a drizzle when called to the ready line, a little harder when called to the firing line, harder through the sighting rounds, more at the command "shooters rise", and when the targets came up the rain came down) I added two clicks of elevation to the M14 NM rifle I was using and had a pretty good grouping in the center of the black. I don't know the dynamics of why of this phenomena, but it falls into some of the known situations such as adjusting elevation when firing down a slope and etc., that have to be learned and adjusted for. I have to say from my experience 12 to 18 inches extraordinary.
It might be the increase pressure, if the rounds or chamber have become wet or damp. As a TR shooter we always keep ammo and chamber / bolt and bolt face dry as this can make shots go high. The army used to say keep ammo bone dry or soaking wet and deduct 100y from the sights to compensate for this increased pressure.
Thing about liquids they are not compressible pure physics mind you so the pressure has to go some where usually pressure spikes or ringed barrels and just like a cooked round in a hot chamber the shot will go high many a day here on a rainy winters day shooting one has the breech/ammo covered but sometimes the wind howls straight down our range and the rain makes for cr*p sighting with the front lense covered in droplets no use wiping them as they will just be back just as quick.......
From my experience it would take a great amount of exposure (time) to rain before there would be any movement in the stock that would affect accuracy.
Heavy barrel No 1 rifles shoot really high, light barrels not quite as high, and No 3 virtually none at all.
It all depended on the cartridges getting wet, which will lead to more action bend.
The general rule of thumb back when 303 MK VII SAA was the norm was:
Heavy barrel SMLE: up to 10 to 12 minutes, depending on forend regulation method
regular SMLE: 4 to 5 minutes
No4 , 4 minutes with either central or front end barrel bearing.
No 3 rifle: virtually nothing.
Source :
Essentials of Marksmanship, Maj. Reynolds, 1964, page 93
I have seen something very similar in one of A.J Parkers write ups , circa 1958/9, where the main focus of his article was the heavy barrel SMLE did not solve all the issues with the SMLE and introduced some of its own.
In my opinion, this has to be shooter error and not related to the rifle absorbing humidity. Because if the rifle could absorb enough moisture to alter it by 6MOA, it would still shoot high when the rain stopped. It could not possibly dry out fast enough to bring the point of impact back to the pre rain level. Changes in lighting due to the weather are more likely the cause; these can easily cause problems for the shooter.
Interesting comments Frederick.
Does the fact that the wet case applies more load on the bolt (by slipping rearward); cause more flexing in the barrel?
Don't forget during this discussion, that an OILED case is not the same as a WET case. Someone mentioned it previously but anyone who served in the tropics, where the monsoons seemed to last from the end of August until the following June will know all about shooting in the rain. We never zeroed because it was a waste of time. But shooting never stopped.
My 1907 BSA MkIII which has its original forend & nosecap shoots very well but on one occasion at a ANZAC day shoot it started to rain but not very hard but i found my MkIII started to drift the shots but not vertically but horizontally & off to the right, going off target completely after about 7 shots, you could see it literally walk off shot by shot! This was discovered doing the pratice round & the rifle returned to zero after sitting back in the rack for 10min or so, still shot it that day but had to compensate by shooting the first 3 shots aiming at the bulleye then slowly move my sights of to the left for each shot after that, didn't do too badly that day considering
Interesting. Never heard of this phenomenon. What I do know, is that "rain" never helped the various Whitetails and coyotes I encountered in 40+ years of hunting here in N. Alabama!
Often using an 8mm or .303.
Interesting comments guys.
This was a 4 position shoot, five rounds each, & the rain came down on the second seated position.
It didn't rain long enough for the wood to get wet, 5 or six minutes. By the time we walked to check the targets, the rain stopped & the sun came out.
on the third, kneeling, all the shooters returned to centre.
I was shooting my Fazakerly No4 mkII with centre bearing, usually shoots very well, but the usual range I shoot at has a covered mound.
I think the wet ammo is probably the answer, my immediate neighbour had five fired cases which had a small dent near the shoulder, like you get if you have too much lube when sizing. The other fifteen all OK.
He used my ammo, as he had forgot his own, so I know the cases were perfect before use. He was about to get in the car when he got an earful from his um, wife, got distracted and left the box of ammo on the floor at home :)
Lee-Enfields are well-known for shooting about five-six minutes high when they get wet. It was one of the reasons some people were glad to move on to other actions when they began to be allowed in the 1970s.
Some people tried to keep their ammo dry, some just accepted the rise and got everything thoroughly wet and hoped that nothing wouldn't crack in the action (7.62 conversions only). The NRA Coaching Course notes I have here mention it.
That bunk makes good sense. That's why AS SOON as the rain stopped they all shot correctly, the rifles immediately dried out...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
So gathering the info in relation to the high shots in the rain is it plausible that there would be a film of water between the bedding the reason I say this as all of my shooters stocks twice yearly get a good drenching (fully stripped fore ends) then a good dosing of BLO/Min Turp 50/50 mix also finished with bees wax so if the stocks are well maintained I fail to see how the water would penetrate in a few minutes on a well oiled stock.
Peter in Malaya was it a constant struggle with warping fore ends as I gather the humidity did its worst to the woods as well as the monsoonal rains. TIA
All of the competitive source relate the issue to a wet chamber causing the shot displacement, not the bedding, the following form the 1970 "Target Rifle Shooting", by E.G.B. Reynolds and Robin Fulton, two names accuracy minded Enfield fans should recognize:
" water on a cartridge case of in a rifle chamber acts like a lubricant in much the same way as oil. When present a cartridge case cannot grip the inner surface of the chamber, resulting in greatly increased pressure on the face of the bolt-head. This inevitably has some effect on the vibratory behavior of the barrel and action, and influences the departure of the bullet.
In the case of rifles with Lee Enfield type actions such as the No 4 rifle, the locking lugs are about 4 inches behind the bolt face........It can increase the angel of projection on the No 4 action by as much as 4 to 5 inches, though this varies between rifles."
This is all on page 130 to 131, a lot more detail is given, and plates 55 and 56, between pages 136 and 137 illustrate how to keep ones action and ammunition dry during a storm, the demo weapon in a No 4.
I believe if folks are interested it is also in one of Sweets books, I have not bothered to check.
Common knowledge in the days of the 303 competition, now lost but for occasional forgotten and dusty tomes from the era.
I think its important to keep the rifle dry. it seems others do too. wet ammo? I dont think it plays a major part in the huge error in accuracy stated above. water in the barrel and water in and around the muzzle would have a significant effect. Both of these influences have been proven in trials and testing.
droplet on the sight, parallax? maybe but that much at 200 yards?
Rifles can be influenced by humidity for quite some time before the humidity level rises to the point of raining. Its a mater of how long they are exposed to enough humidity to change the aim point. It does not nessisarrily need to actually be raining.. the fact that accuracy resumed after the rain ended may discount this but it bares consideration . Other shooters factor it in. and the LE with its critical wood forarm and barrel essentially surrounded by wood must bare careful consideration.
water acting as a lubricant on the case? I wont go as far as to state its a myth but studies have been done by several nations with lubricated cases and there was little concern for accuracy deviation caused by the so called increased pressure on the bolt. The problems were the uniform layer of the lubricant once the rounds were in the hands of troops and that the lubricant attracted dirt. This obsession with the brass gripping the chamber, if it were so important why does the LE have such a notoriously loose chamber, and why does it only "grip' at the one end while at the base it clearly does not, and why does a reloaded round eventually separate at the point where the case no longer grips the chamber. I think the case expands and seals against gas leakage but the case separation over a few reloadings suggests that the rear of the case moves rearward and imposses what ever pressure it does whether the rear of the case or the entire case moves rearward against the bolt. Whether it is true or not has yet to be proven conclusivly.I think as in most supposition that this was believed to be the case when there was no way to prove it and has been repeated often and by many without a thorough study. The fact that lubricated cases have been evaluated suggests that what ever studies have been done prove quite the opposite. The russians put shellaque on thier steel cases to prevent rusting and to help seal the case to chamber interface because the steel does not expand like brass to seal. not grip. Steel cases dont expand like brass.
Many prominant and published reloaders have also been stating thier own suspicions based on observation that many shooters, my self included that there is little difference between a lubricated case and a lubricated chamber and further more many worn chambers in cluding many many of our beloved LE's have chambers well worn to the point of being highly polished. Same said reloading Author and others who shoot gas guns encourage, advise and describe various methods of polishing the chamber. So I doubt that water or oil on the case or in the chamber have such an effect on accuracy, Lubricating the case or chamber and or polishing the chamber should be considered carefully but not discounted out of hand as is so often the case. I even polish my cases as a stage in the reloading process.
Water/moisture in and around the muzzle would be my bet since accruacy resumed emidiatly when the rains stoped.
The question remains....... some shooters were not effected by the rain nor when its stopped. what did they do differently?
Mike 16
Your basic premise, while it would seem to be possible, is not correct. It is the issue of the wet cases, the folks that were involved in competitive shooting, over a 40 year period all agree. we are talking about the champions, such as Fulton who won the Queens in 1958 and was second in 1959. You are simply unaware of the large amount of written texts on the topic, done when the Lee Enfield was the Fullbore completion rifle for the British empire.
If you care to search out the sources I will put them down for you, in addition to the pervious 1964 and 1970 sources :
The Elements of Rifle Shooting, Major Barrlow, Third edition, May 1938, page 119
The Elements of Rifle Shooting, Brigadier Barrlow, 5th edition 1958 pages 121 to 123
Competitive Rifle Shooting, 1956, 4th edition, James Sweet, page 69
Rudiments of Rifle Shooting, Major Wakefield, 1948, page 28
In Modern Rifle Shooting, 4th edition, Tippins, 1913 he does not address rain in the chamber, at least I did not find it in my brief preview but states that the muzzle jump is altered with oiled cases by around 4 minutes upwards, results based on his experiments.
One of the tricks I used when I competitively shot the No 4 rifle was to acetone the chamber walls before the match, to eliminate any residual oil/grease that might be in the chamber. It would make the first zero shoots stay within the group, otherwise you might see an elevation shift slight elevation shift until the chamber got hot and any residue displaced.
Another factor I found that does not specifically deal with the wet rounds or water if if you are shooting a prolonged string which may be varying bursts (35+ rounds) with only a minute or so between the string I have found the heat haze coming off the top woods on my MkIII's and No.4's is just as bad as the mirage and can make front sight definition difficult. I always spray my front sight & ears also the rear sight with sight black so they are jet black. If you cannot readily define the front sight like the tip is greying out your rounds are going to go high or low depending on just how far out your sight picture is. And there is no way I am gluing a piece of green felt on the top woods nor flat black paint..........
I have often thought if an oiled round increases the back thrust onto the bolt face whether this increase upsets the noding in the barrel causing perhaps the bullet exiting the barrel on the up-flip anyway good discusion and some reading to chase down.
This is an interesting topic. Seems I have a few book titles to look for now.
Last year I had an issue shooting a competition using my No1 rifle; where the second group of 10 were all lower than the initial 10 rounds. I believe this because we were only two shooters in that round, so the marking targets was really fast and the barrel had not cooled much before starting the rapid fire round. Dropped the score considerably unfortunately
Weather was good and dry.
freddy,
look at the dates of all your sources, impressive collection by the way. but its not about paying lip service to past sources impressive as they seem. My sources are less than 15 years old. I shoot rifles. I dont collect outdated literature . No arguements from me based on the pedantic ability to site minor and obscure details from outdated sources.
Another area that has advanced somewhat since the 30's is coatings that have been in common use on rifles for at least 10-15 years. dry film thermal and lubricating coatings.
also. I have been shooting black powder 45/70 for some time as an aside, the grease grooves in some black powder projectiles. filled with grease, some of that grease, makes its way past the opening in the case and workes its way down the side of the case and after 20 or so rounds there is a grease ring aroundthe cases about 3/8th of an inch wide. some, whether by accident or intent some form of lubrication or another eventually finds itself between the case and the chamber.
How could grease or rain water uniformally coat each round; so uniformally that those with wet rounds shot uniformally high. How do you determine that eash round is coated over its surface with an uniform thickness of water? each round handled differently by different shooters managed to get a uniform coating of water such that several of the rifles shot the same high point. Think about it. what are the odds. Lubricants have been used with such regularity that statistical, accurate results can be reproduced by varios labs. Your sources? did they site a test result or did they accuartly reproduce the same tests. and come up with the same repeatable results.
Your sources are outdated and serve the perpose of proving a myth, while shooting technology has moved on...and on... and on.
Your sources are 40 to 100 years old. the technological abilities have advanced enough to prove or disprove this myth. The studies them selves eliminated all other sources? Lets reproduce the test and see if the same results occur.And lets ensure ther are no other causes and effects that might factor into the results.
Its funny that you choose such old sources to support your supposition. Coating ammo and barrels have been around in the literture for, like I said 10-15 years.
why did the other riles shoot streight?
There is not even enough information in the origonal post to evaluate the cause and effect.
Cinders brought up a good point that bares consideration, A problem I recal with the LE was that, under certain limited visability conditions, the shooter can pick up one of the front sightblade protecting ears rather than the front site blade itself.
Dear Mike 16,
To your point of outdated sources:
Of course one has to allow for the possibility that two generations of UK, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian competitive rifleman, from the late 1927 to end of the .303 era in the early 1970s could have diagnosed the cause incorrectly. Because of their background, (which I will return to) I very much doubt that. While revisionist history has its place, in this case you are dealing with 45 years of accumulated wisdom, which was based on observation and scientific experiment by competitive shooters. If the names of Desmond Burke, Robin Fulton, E.G.B. Reynolds, James Sweet, and J.A. Barrow do not give you pause, you either know nothing of the period, or you suffer from a modernists disillusions that generations of old were incapable of the scientific method. A lifetime of the engineering has taught me the prior generations were just as intelligent and capable as moderns.
Now as a simple example will suffice to show these men were capable of controlled experiments; here are the earliest results I could find in print:
"In 1927 Gordon King and I fired some scores at around 625 yards from the shelter of the tin sheds behind the firing points at the century butt. Our shorts were not appreciably affected by the rain (ie. the rifles were dry). We then simulated rain conditions of normal shooting by dipping each round of ammunition into a glass of water and slopped water in to the action and breech (bolt). Our shots were appreciable higher. As the rain had not changed, it is presumed that the changes in breech pressure and barrel vibration were to blame."
Desmond Burke, Canadian Bisley Rifle Shooting 1970, page 140. (Gordon King was in the Bisley finals 12 times between 1919 and 1938 and Burke was a Gold medal winner).
The effect of oil on chamber walls was known no later than 1913 with the Long lee Enfield. The effect of water was observed, but apparently not quantified by 1927, does not appear in the small arms hand book of 1929 but does appear in quantified form in Barrows books sometime between 1932 to 1938. It then continues in print until the last series of competitive books that deal with the Lee Enfield target rifle in the early 1970s (1972 to be exact), written by the master authorities of that era (Burke, Fulton, Reynolds). Also C.B.S. book jacket shows Arthur Fulton, G.E. Twine, P. Pavey all endorsed Burkes 1970 tome. By the way these same sources point out when dealing with the P14 or other front locking lug guns the change will be virtually undetectable.
Now you may well think I am just an idle chap who spends his day happily ensconced in arcane old books. Not so, I was in my day a reasonable shooter with service (and match rifle though I hesitate to admit such heresy) medals from Switzerland, Canada, Australia and of course the US. High-Master, P100, Distinguished, AMU-SDM coach, etc. Oh yea, and I am published in the field, though one article on long range 7.62 NATO match cartridges hardly counts for all that much. But the point is it is simply not a case of regurgitated book learning, I have spent some time of the shooting fields of Perry, Connaught, Malabar and Easily ranges. Of course you could have far better credentials, nor am I denigrating your knowledge, just mentioning my background to establish standing.
Competitive shooters are to use the modern diction: "anal" when it comes to shooting and observations of weather effects. All of the authors I quoted were the big names of their era, from Tippins pre WWI to Burke and Fulton to the end of the .303 full bore reign. Between 2002 and 2013 I spent a lot of time shooting, experimenting and learning to regulate Lee Enfield rifles with cordite loads and nitro loads. I found these books to be correct in all details and without them I would have been lost. That it was accepted by 40 years of shooters and the effect quantified (with exceptions noted for heat treatment variations), shows that these chaps knew of what they wrote, just as when the modern day Bernosky, Tubbs, Anderson, Tompkins or K. Thomas opines, wise men pause and recheck their assumptions before dismissing these fellows ideas out of hand.
Could you tell something about the wether exeptQuote:
Originally Posted by crusty
For rain.? Wind, temperature, humidity
Light rain or heavy rain?
I Think it is chance in airdensity caused by the rain
To be the reson why you POI is higher.
Jsne
Off track a bit BUT the reason we know all about shooting and the whys and wherefores are from preceding generations not to forget Percy Pavey from the list they did the inroads others in fire arm development like Speer, Keith, Bowman also assisted now we have Tubb, Shehane and Litz all help getting the knowledge out there.
The big difference with todays shooters than those of past ages is our gear and powder/primers are far superior in quality than they had to operate with there is only one constant that is the same between the eons and that is climactic conditions this is the field leveler as it was the same for them as for us mirage is mirage and a howling wind is just that across the ages.
When I transitioned from full bore shooting which I had done for 20 years I often pre shift gave the effies stick calling them Barn door shooters as that's what their looking at but I was wrong totally I can attest that it is far more difficult as you may say barn doors but they shrunk the barn door rather sharply E G The "X" ring at 500m is 50mm in diameter some of our shooters can land 5-6 out of ten shots in there consistently the rest are 6's.
Then you can see the conditions change from moment to moment constantly doping the shot I watched a guy last weekend trying to wind to the conditions in his first string and it was from one side to the other chasing the mirage and then remembering what you had wound lost cause the second string I got him to the 6 ring with his sighters then said now dope the hold as you can keep up with the changes far better and there is nothing to forget except when we get to 1000yds the mirage is so bad at times the lines on the target look like an ocean of waves and your aiming at a target that is not there.
Nope the oldies did it tough with gear that was not as good as we have today but I tell you I for one would not want to have them on the opposing side shooting at me even with their antiquated rifles a definite liability to ones health....
Also ~ Lights down, Sights down.
I've heard of a few cases - and by that I mean spoken to someone credible who witnessed it personally - where No.4s converted to 7.62mm have cracked the small recoil lug firing in the rain, so the effect of wet ammunition and water in the chamber seems to make sense. Considering that water is not compressible there is no reason why it would not have a similar effect to oil on case adhesion and therefore on thrust against the bolt.
Of course those may have been rifles with imperfectly fitted, possibly replacement, bolts as some DCRA conversions had their bolts replaced.
The old guys did not have balistic calculators to give projections of load performance at varying distances either. I bet they spent a whole lot more time on the range; and with that comes the experience of how to read the weather.
Freddy,
your so full of it. I recall one time,.... one time! when I dared to make reference to an NRA publication on the FF stamps on LE's and you went off on me. Not The NRA. Not the Author, and not the information stated. It seems that freddy wants to control the flow of knowleg to and from. Its not enough to suck up to you or even agree with you freddy but to simply sit in silence and be awed by your impressive citation of the tomes.
your sources are out dated, and even if they state facts that remain accepted today most people would rely on the most current information rather than books that are 100 plus years old. You would never get buy submitting a GRP for a masters if you relied on references 100 year old or lame hollow arguements like the ones you rely on to attack other people rather than the statements they make..
I hope others who read your drivel recognise that you are not impressing us with just the names of authors but gunsmiths and shooters too. impressive list of names to drop but how many of them did specific tests on water drenched rounds. so how relevent are they, and how relevent since the last 20 plus years when lubed rounds have been marketed commecially. and since the lubed round issue is a dead horse. lets just focus on water drenced rounds. The russians have developed since the late 60's fire arms that shoot while submerged, drenched enough for you? and there are silencers on the market now that function after being submerged in water. drenched enough for you? But since you 100 year old books on LE's dont metion russian developments in the 60's.. it does not apply. Since your 50 year old books on LE's dont mention all the advances made since then. those advances dont apply. and no advances apply because published data does not refference the LE specifically.
do you even hear your self?
But your right because you can quote all of these authors, gunsmiths and shooters in your 100 year old books.....on drenched rounds as decribed by they op's first post....right?....right? I will call you out right now by challenging your implication that all these authors, shooters and gunsmiths wrote on the subject of drenched rounds. I'm betting they all did not, so why mention them? for who's benifit? dont you have to rely on the reader to be a bit stoopit to believe that, as you imply, all of these people wrote on this specific subject and there for you can quote from them. I could be wrong but I'll risk calling you out on that.
Crust's discription was accurate and detailed enough that you could turn to any refference by any author, gunsmith or shooter and say Ah! Yes! so and so refferenced drenched rounds, as decribed by crusty, in his famous reveared tome of 1938 blah blah blah? I bet you wish we were stoopit enough that you could pull that off.
You do more than hint that your credentials carry enourmous weight. well thats better than quoting shooters, gunsmiths and authors except you blow that out of the water as well, the only credential that should matter and conviently does not; is your shooting and engineering experience. But you dont rely on shooting experience too much which is a good thing if you have none that pretains to drenched rounds. and your enginneering prowess? I would suspect that too because of your unsound arguements. I have read of more sound arguements from 9th graders. You play fast and loose with your slight of hand, and maybe that fools alot of idiots. but anyone who takes shooting these rifles seriously see's right through your gibberish and elusive rant.
Your refferences are too old, technology has passed you by, Just because new refferences dont mention LE's does not mean they are irrelevant or not appricable. WE are not wrong simply because you can quote some irrelevant 100 year old text based on myths and misunderstanding.
You would never make a good teacher because you covet all the sources of information you refer to.You must control not just the information but the flow of information. Your the guy behind the curtain in the wizzard of oz.
Crusty did not describe all the conditions with enough detail that we can discern what is relevent or not (excepting your own contributions).
We, none of us know, just how drenched crusty.... and so many other shooters rounds were or how full of water their chambers ware. Who shoots in such conditions that thier rounds are drenched and chambers filled with water. For a test maybe, for competition? I'll bet not. Let crusty chime in here to decribe drenching his rounds in water and filling his chamber with water. is the experiement repeatable?
Freddy, ole boy. why dont you refference your library in aserting why some rifles shot high and others did not. quoting your library of text's. that way nobody can dispute what you say or if you are wrong. You are wrong but at least you got a 100 year old library to surround and comfort you in your ignorance.
By the way,,, impressive collection. too bad its of no value to us. you?...yes....us? none at all. But thanks,,,again for reminding us of where we are in your food chain.
I always just thought I shot more towards what I was looking at. Missed a lot of chip shots at game by shooting right over the back after sitting all day in the rain or falling snow. Once I start into a sight picture I see the rain through my sights and I'm watching it fall through my target and then right over top.
Fellas, it is more than okay to disagree with another member here but please do it respectfully and without belittling or berating one another. There are some of the best and well informed here on the site and the last thing we want to do is cause anyone to be made to feel uncomfortable because of any reason.
This thread has a great deal of good information within it's posts. Let us not detract from that. :thup:
#33 Mike in my shooting experiences I have had rounds go high from having moisture on them the thing is it is not consistent enough you can wind for it and it was considered by the fraternity that one should endevor to keep the rounds and action as dry as possible however here is one that actually happened as I was the shooter.
I was shooting in pouring rain literally we were at 500m (full bore) myself and Dave Basten both shooting, the rain was so bad that the bulls eye through my peep sights was just a grey smudge but I was keeping my rounds/action covered it was a 9 round burst 2 x sighters 7 scoring for a possible 35 with 7 V bulls (35.07).
I fired a 35.06 was asked on the last shot (which was wrong) if I wanted to scrub the bulls eye sighter I had kept to try for the 35.07 as I was sitting on a 30.05 with 1 shot remaining I declined fired the last round with a front tunnel that looked like a rain drenched window and got up soaking wet with a 35.06 saying to the scorer a 35.06 is better than a 33.05.
After all these years I am inclined to believe that the supersonic pressure wave at the meplat vaporizes the droplets and others on the periphery of the waves are pushed aside so they never get near the projectile to touch it so do not affect its accuracy the only thing that may come of it is denser air due to temperature drop which is elevation anyway.
It may however be different at the longer ranges when the round is in transonic or subsonic but it would have to be bucketing down I feel to have a significant affect on the bullets flight at those transitions.
Anyway thats what happened on that day for me.
The Textbook of Small Arms 1929 mentions how tests showed that a rifle with a perfectly clean and dry chamber and cartridge case whose barrel was simply slid into the receiver without any threads or other attachment, could be fired, and if the case and chamber were a correct fit to each other, the barrel would not move out of the receiver.
If such a combination was fired with the slightest amount of oil in chamber or on the cartridge - effectively practically the same thing obviously - the barrel was blown violently out of the action.
The point being that almost all the backwards force of the explosion was contained by the walls and base of the cartridge case due to its adhering to the chamber walls when expanded by the explosion of the propellant.
It is an old book, but anyone who's read it will realize that it was written on the back of vast experience, observation and direct experimentation.
The TBSA also goes into barrel vibration and it's effect on bullet "jump". After reading that section I don't doubt that a great change in case adhesion could well have a great effect on barrel "whip" and therefore on bullet placement.
Obviously, very old rifles with very old dry stocks would be quite likely to move with increased humidity, depending on the qualities of the wood grain-we all know wood "moves" as the grain dictates don't we?
That is obviously a separate issue from whatever variations in MPI changes in case adhesion and bolt thrust may cause.
Common sense would indicate that where the bolt is compressed by the backwards movement of the unadhering case, vibrations are going to be different from when the case does not move in the chamber and it would strange if such different vibrations DID NOT have an affect on MPI.
And Frederick303, I congratulate you on your restraint and the quality of your posts. As I've said before, I've always found them worth reading.
Well, finally Cinders, some one has dared to mention the effect of the projectile contacting raindrops.
This should really get them going.
Yes, the pressure wave at the meplate should in theory disperse the droplet, however, the bullet travelling at supersonic speed has just come into contact with an incompressible droplet, round at the bottom and tapering to a tail at the top.......travelling also at terminal velocity.
So how many droplets does it take to disrupt the pressure wave and cause a vertical deviation, realising the projectile shape is basically a boat does it commence to aquaplane on subsequent droplets?
:) There has been some pretty complex equations done by some very clever people, slow motion and time lapse pic's taken of bullets hitting raindrops and subsequent effects, basically agreeing that there is deviation.......the distance varies depending on range and velocity, specially as the projectile becomes subsonic. Or depending on the projectile shape, round nose being less effected than spire point.
I don't remember the OP stating that the rounds were wet, that's an assumption made by subsequent posters, so why are we blowing this so out of proportion.
There are some very basic points to remember here, when it rains it also gets dull, hence we attempt to allow more light in to compensate, basically aiming higher(Light down Sight down), so if we have not adjusted our sights to compensate, when the light improves our group will return to it's original POI.
The effect on the projectile in rain where the target remains visable(short range) the effect will be minimal.
The effect on the projectile in heavy or oblique rain will effect the flight, but it also effects the shooter, so the actual effect of one factor over another is indeterminate.
So have some fun with that little lot.
It's a basic premise of shooting that wet ammunition and/or chamber will make the rounds go high; however what about the effect of wind?
RT Ellis Post #7 is on the money with his post regarding the effect of wind. A strong wind from directly behind you will also move your point of impact up. This happened to me the other week at 500 yards.
You don't see many of those small beer towels on pub counters around Bisley these days, ........probably because so many keep getting nicked to cover up the actions of target rifles to stop the rain getting in!
Ok, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm exhausted ... :surrender:
I know now how it feels to watch a dog chase its tail ... :lol:
Lots of great participation and diverging viewpoints, but some folks still need to read about our forum etiquette policy they agreed to under our Terms of Service Agreement" they electronically signed when they joined. ;)
Regards,
Doug