Thanks for all your kind words.
What I wrote is just the results of a few years of careful observations and notes.
I have been blessed with the opportunity to dedicate myself to this full time, until becoming a stay at home Dad, LOL! Thanks should really go to Veronika, that made it all possible.
Anyway, short comments
Boomer is too modest, you should see the looks he gets from waitresses at the Texas Roadhouse in New Philadelphia.
Paul is partially right in that rifling rates (twists) can define whether a pellet wobbles in flight or not, but in my experiments, and I am right now in the final stages of a very long research project that has taken over 4 years, there are other aspects that are as important, if not more.
Manolo uses an Anschütz barrel, so quality of manufacturing is a given there, he also specced the internal dimensions of the barrel for a pellet. So when he shoots these pellets, he has good results, but his barrels are not dramatically more "forgiving" of batch differences than others.
We need to remember that wind drift is proportional to pellet's velocity LOSS. And that is a function of drag, which in turn gets its worse boost from wobble.
A pellet that "goes to sleep" (meaning that it's turning in its own axis without any wobble) will drift much less than a pellet that does wobble, even slightly.
In BR and LR circles barrels that are capable of precisely and accurately putting to sleep the projectiles used are called "hummers". And within the realm of cilindroconical bullets, the factors that are conducive to this are rather well known.
Not so in the pellet world.
And there are two reasons for that, sort of like a push-pull toy.
The VASTLY PREDOMINANT twist rate for pellet barrels is in the region of 1/16". Partly inheritance of the old days of using RF barrels for Airguns.
So, most pellet manufacturers strive to obtain the best results out of these typical barrels.
And so, we perpetuate the situation where "natural selection" tends to ensure that the best probability of high accuracy comes from the established twist with the established pellet shapes.
Until recently, that H&N decided to "rescue" the efforts made by the deceased "Defiant/Prometheus" line in what is now called the "Sniper" line, we had not seen an innovative pellet shape since Sheridan's Bantams.
Again it's a question of minimizing the wobbles and given the extremely complex shapes of pellets we are still some time away from final results. But we are advancing.
Josh.- 40 clicks are not magnification dependent. Unless you want to measure the subtension (angle) instead of the distance (inches) between aimpoints before and after the 40 clicks.
If you measure the distance (inches) with a target placed at 95.51 yards, you will be measuring MOA's.
If you measure inches at 100 yards you will be measuring "shooter's MOA" or IPHY's.
PERSONALLY, I would suggest you measure the number of clicks per YOUR dots. As it is this combined number what will be most useful to YOUR method of shooting every distance possible.
It's not what I would do because having made PP-Calc, I tend to rely on it for establishing my numbers for each venue.
Thanks again, keep well and shoot straight!