Well then, to stay on topic, I don't even follow Calfee's logic in setting up a tuner in this fashion. He wrote that this would guarantee the muzzle is stopped, but it seems to me that this is just an indication that it is actually behaving differently for both speeds. The differing speeds, with all else being equal, should result in a different POI. Launching any given projectile at different speeds, but same angle, should result in differing points of impact. So if you do find a tuner setting that makes a 1040 ft/s bullet hit the same place as a 1080 ft/s bullet, wouldn't that mean that you've only managed to find the setting that places the muzzle slightly lower when the faster bullet leaves? Seems to me that if you did indeed find a setting that stops the muzzle dead so it is in the exact same position all the time then this would make it even easier to see the different POI that you would get from the different velocities. If you had the perfect gun that did not move at all and launched the bullet absolutely perfectly every time, and you had the perfect bullet that flew perfectly every time, and had perfect conditions, no wind, etc, then a 1040 ft/s bullet is never going to have the same POI as a 1080 ft/sec bullet out at 42 yards, or 50 yards, or 100 yards. By the time the bullet reaches those distances there should be more than enough difference in POI to easily be observed and measured. Spending a few minutes with
an online ballistics calculator, punching in an Eley Tenex EPS bullet of .224" diameter, 0.150 BC, no wind, a 100 yard zero, and results at 1 yard intervals showed easily noticable differences in rise, even with its single-decimal accuracy, even at the 42 yard mark.
I forget the finer details of Calfee's experiment right now, so I don't know if he was using a 42 yard zero too, or a 50 yard, or whatever else. But if he was indeed zeroing at 42 yards as well as having the target at 42 yards, then I guess the difference in POI in that situation would be a good deal smaller anyway, from what I can tell from fiddling with data and that calculator. There would still be some difference, but I guess in the real world there's the real world variations to deal with anyway. I guess it's hard to argue with results, and he seems to be very happy with the results he gets while following his method. But it just seems to me, keeping perfect theoretical ballistics in mind, that this method would still leave some room for improvement. Did he say this was a good starting point? Or that after doing this you were done fiddling with the tuner? Guess I should go read that one again and refresh my memory.
