20 February 2019
It has been known for some time that with a given zero at longer ranges (longer than 50 or 100 yards such as the 200m you used) with a given load the rounds having a higher velocity most often hit higher within the cone of fire.
What you want to do is read this sentence, over and over, until you begin to laugh. Faster bullets hit higher? Isn't that what my test data shows?
My questions were just an attempt at further discussion and seek a bit of clarification of the interesting test you conducted, they were not criticism.
"and what is the group size (cone of fire) when fired at one level?
Such will give us a "standard" for comparison.
Comparison of what?"
A comparison of what your test reveled (your test results and your conclusion) compared to a similar result of what is normally done (the comparison group..."standard") would simply have given us a side by side comparison.
"Your graph shows both
The ES and group size as asked in the previous sentence. With your further explained details of how you conducted the test I see you actually, in a round about way, can measure both. Also based on that further explanation if you over lap the different aiming points to the same point you did, actually fire one 50 shot group.
"when fired at different levels but is there a difference between your test and a "standard" when fired at one elevation.
Show me the data!"
That is a question joe. You apparently misconstrue what was stated. It says "is there" which is a question. It does not say "there is" which would be a statement alluding to other "data". This is your test, the question was asking about other data you may have had.
The premise of your test was; " Do changes in MV change shot elevation, over a set of shot with the same load?"
Yes, you certainly "proved" what was already known, and has been known for many years........in a very interesting manner. Thanks for the information.
"I wonder if Ed likes your comments."
Sorry joe, but you've lost me on this one..........
Concealment is not cover.........