Veloclty of same caliber bullets are so random - why?

>>34710907
Uniformity of the powder/flakes.
Uniformity of the projectile.
The minute differences in the barrels.
Itty bitty shit stacks to noticeable sizes.

>>34710920
Also measurement error. Chrons street perfect, so you shoot a dozen or so save take an average.

Even using black powder muzzleloaders, you can get a pretty consistent velocity. Ten or 20 fps isn't enough to sweat about.

>>34710937
Meant to say chrons "aren't" perfect.

alright, I just find it interesting.
That a simple machine and projectile can be so unbalanced.

What he said >>34710920
variations in just about every measurement.

>>34710992
it's not super terrible, +/- about 2%.

>>34711054
2% is pretty good, I think

If this wasn't an issue, military snipers wouldn't need to use expensive weapons made to extremely high tolerances out of specialist metal alloys, firing high grade ammunition. Most of these issues don't matter to normal shooters, the percentage differences in the velocities you have posted are pretty small. Consider; fouling (even with modern smokeless powders, you need to clean weapons after use), thermal expansion of gun parts with use, difference in burn rate of propellant with chamber temperature, minute differences in propellant mass, variation in propellant grain size, timing of the recoil operated action prior to bullet leaving the barrel (influenced by lubrication, chamber pressure and thermal expansion).

It's not the same because few products are manufactured that precisely, and because except for specialist areas like
>>34711934
It doesn't matter if the speed varies by a dozen or so fps

>>34711968
>If this wasn't an issue, military snipers wouldn't need to use expensive weapons made to extremely high tolerances out of specialist metal alloys, firing high grade ammunition.
That's a funny way of saying Remington 700 in an adjustable stock.

>>34711968
you don't own any guns do you

>Those numbers
>"all over the place"
the velocities you presented are functionally identical.

>>34710907
>>34712290
Yeah I was thinking the same thing, those numbers are pretty consistent for .45 ACP factory ammo

>>34712012
Not that he isn't a retard, but some teams do use nicer, more purpose built rifles than just a slightly polished hunting rifle.

>>34710920
>>34710937

These, you can handloads some of the nicest powder on the market and still end up with 20 fps difference. There are so many small things that add up, even two guns of the same make, model, and even batch will have two different velocity averages and one might behave more consistently with one brand of powder than another

>>34712538
Eh. I'm not happy with handloads unless my extreme spread is 12 or less.

A few of my favorite loads have ESs of 6 and SDs of 2.

>>34710907
>life is perfect
Protip: no car actually has the horsepower that the factory claims either. There are margins of error in all manufacturing.

>>34712290
>the velocities you presented are functionally identical.

Can I use this as an excuse when I do 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.... no.

>>34713144
1-2% velocity differences vs 45% over. Nice try though.

>>34713144
I hope for the sake of your humility that this is bait

>>34713144
Do you not have cruise control

>>34711968
>If this wasn't an issue, military snipers ...
It's not an issue for the majority of weapons at the most common ranges (0-500m). You're talking about a tiny portion of firearm users.

>>34713144
No, but you can use it as an excuse for going 56 in a 55mph zone

>>34713144
disregarding your retardism, most people do 80 in 55 zones anyway

Because there are more factors and variables involved when a gun fires a projectile than you would think.

>>34712282
You're asking the wrong question retard. It's
"you have never fired a gun before have you".

Haha this thread is cracking me up. Life has variables, this isn't a video game.