Science/Engineering/Technical forums

Well, so far the first part could be called "little girl", as in "when she was good, she was very, very good".
Heh. This was its 3rd 5 shot group. First was the lead load and fairly rotten, second was a "throwaway" load with 39 gr Varget, a 95 gr hornady (with ~ .1" jump to the lands - it's a tiny bullet for this caliber) - I moly coated them...all FLR brass which barely expanded and with no flattening of the primer. Probably ~ 3k fps, but I didn't crono - next nice day, I promise. I didn't think this would shoot, just kinda doing the shoot some and clean some breakin dance here. But. Bore scope still shows lots of tool marks, and more copper gets on the grooves than the lands...Not so bad I want to use abrasive and fire-lap, I'll be patient - that's been working out so far, even if the anticipation is hard on me.

Sweet. Thanks.

To relate this ever so slightly to fusion -
This is almost as accurate as you'd need to collide two bullets midair, or hit a bullet at around 1/3 mile. (I do have two guns with the requisite accuracy, FWIW - better than this one, so far)
In terms of that "fly in a cathedral" that's 100% fusion probability if you can do it with D ions....

If we can do it with a rifle, with all the variables we have there that you don't have with atomic nuclei - you're kinda there, except being able to do a LOT of it quickly enough to make meaningful power.
Given that it should be a lot easier with nuclei than with bullets, it's kind of embarrassing that we're not there yet.
I did run the math (open of course to someone who can do it better) - and if we were for example firing protons at lithium - and could do it this well - we'd be "there" now. Heisenberg doesn't limit this, we don't need to push that limit to be good enough.
So in a way, this is all related, and encouraging. I think we can get rid of wind, and most barrel vibrations, as well as charge variations, with atoms...