RSW wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 12:11pm:


I agree Randy. He mentions the mix of 1 in 10 ratio, and I'd assume he would have no reason to not use the mold Pope built to go with his barrel.

John,
  Roland's target was shot on one day, May 16, 1901.  Shooting from a machine rest was "state of the art" for benchrest shooting back then but would be completely non-competitive against what we use today.

Not starting any rumors it has been very well known that his accomplishment was done over just one day.
He was also a very wealthy man and he probably had more free time and the very best of rifles than any of us could ever afford. 
The machine rest was not crude by any means at the time and he did not even have to touch the rifle itself.
The folks who have since surpassed his accomplishment in no way had an advantage over him by any means. 
But actually just the opposite of what he could actually afford to buy and use.
Folks keep asking can anyone do the same as he did and the only one that I know of has been Randy Wright.
So why not get out there and try doing itself instead of just asking if anyone else can as Randy himself has done. 
And he has been doing it with what ever he could afford to own and to also use.
You your self have some very nice rifles with the barrels made at the time and they might actually be capable of doing the same as CW Roland once did.
Once being the Key the word so it would only be but one goal that you would have to reach. 
 




  

You can argue machine rest vs modern rests, weather conditions, time it took or any other factors you want, but the fact it took so long to best should speak for itself.

Then what no has mentioned that I have seen, is the difference in optics. It would not be to far of a stretch to say that the worst modern scopes have better glass than the best of the day 100 years ago. Even a 50 year old scope is far better. That in itself is a huge advantage. Never mind the quality of mounts and the ability to return to zero.

After all, even a perfect machine can only go where you point it.

It’s kind of a pointless argument of who did it better. The more often the score is beat, the more likely you can attribute it to improved equipment. At the time original group was shot, there were many more people shooting the same or similar gear, and it was not bested. 

When 100 years later you have 1/1000 shooters beat what only 1/100000  could do, it’s not likely that technology did not play a significant role.

Not trying to take away from anybody’s accomplishments, but it needs to be considered honestly.

JL. You just challenged folk to 'prove' whatever. Let's see some of your proof. You just said that folks today did not have an advantage- start by proving THAT. Or, concrete evidence that it was shot over a lengthy span of time. (that the drizzle conveniently cooperated in). Heck, just prove anything. 

calledflyer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 5:55pm:


An old Pope Ballard, which was state of the art at the time. An old machine rest, which was state of the art at the time. Old duplex load, also state of the art at the time. A crappy telescope, which was state of the art at the time.
Yet today shooters probably have better everything, except maybe that Pope barreled Ballard.  And how old was CW Rowland at this time? Yet, somehow Rowland had something equal to what we see on the firing lines today? Not in my book.

So it sounds like you're just going to state you've got years of knowledge to say you're right? That's not proof, that's your opinion.
And bringing up some past discussion about cutting rifling has zip to do with this discussion, and proves nothing to support your claims. It is as I said previously, just a way for you to try to make some off topic point that makes zero sense.
And saying everyone else can do the same as you is basically saying they can ask around, and repeat myths also, which still doesn't prove a darn thing. If you can't prove it, then say so. Don't simply state that people can do their own research.