10 shot group

[5MilesBack]

If you shoot 2 shots one day, then 2 the next time at the range, and so on until you've shot 10 shots.........is that a 10 shot group, or five 2-shot groups? Or does it even matter if all you're doing is killing stuff with that rifle? It's easy to get stuck in the weeds.....depending on what your goal is.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m dull with numbers. I took your tunnel study to say that rifles are shooting 2-3 moa in controlled environments with larger group sizes.

Apologies. No, there are definitely MOA and sub MOA rifles by almost any ones definition.

 

[WCB]

If you’re shooting modern match ammo out of a modern rifle in a tunnel at 100 yards and getting 2 or 3+ MOA 5-shot groups, you’ve got an enormous issue somewhere. That’s just hot garbage. Even my junk chrome moly ar barrels shooting junk bulk ammo do better.

This is absolutely not true. Your junk barrels may shoot junk ammo well but not all do....does that mean something is wrong with those other barrels?

I know well made barrels that shoot well made (match grade) ammo terrible (right around 2MOA) But, shoot hunting ammunition fantastic well under MOA. What enormous issues would you say there are with those barrels? If a barrel shoots match ammunition fantastic and hunting loads terrible is there nothing wrong with the barrel then?

I have seen this play out in industry accuracy barrels and in real firearms in extremely controlled environments and confirmed by human calculation and computer calculation at the same time and come out to the same findings.

 

[MattB]

I hate it when the real world collides with theory and theory is left scratching its head.

 

[Wrench]

Are we thumping bad guys holding babies hostage or deer and elk?

Margin of error and sample contamination is well within minute of deer heart with all the above practices and principles to a long damn ways off.

 

[MThuntr]

Technically speaking 10rd groups aren't statistically significant data...you'd practically need to burn out a barrel to gather that information. Shooting is fun and bragging about groups is fun. Unless you're shooting benchrest match where the difference between 1st and 5th is a matter of thousandths of an inch, I see no need to go more than 5 per load to confirm a decent consistent load. After that, I'm shooting a hunting rifle in poorly controlled conditions and potentially compromised shooting position that might get shot 1 time at an animal at anywhere from 25 yards to 500 yards.

I need the cold bore shot to hit where I'm shooting and then I might shoot a second shot and very rarely will a 3rd be sent. At that point I need to reload and very likely am in a pickle (either need pack support or worse I need help tracking a bad shot). Yes that grouping info/data all comes into play when you know your rifle and load are consistent but in reality a 1 shot group into the vitals is what I need.

I have a 300WSM that will shoot 2 shots nearly touching and then after will send rounds all over the place. I'd be luck to have 1" with 3rds and 2" with 5. 10rds is unfeasible within the amount of time I'd need to cool the barrel and rest my shoulder from the recoil.

 

[WCB]

We must have different standards on what a "well made barrel" means. Honestly, I don't know how you even get 3 MOA groups with match ammo.

Name some of the well known higher end barrel makers. Those are the ones I am talking about. Ones that by general consensus among gun guys make good barrels. Not talking your specific favorite etc. but well established respected barrel makers.

I also didn't say 3moa...it was 2moa. But your positions is barrels just can't shoot match ammunition bad?

And again what enormous issue would there be if a gun shoots match Ammunition poorly and other ammunition lights out?

 

[MattB]

"Have you actually gone out shooting and figured it out for yourself? Did you click on any of those links I threw up there? If you were too lazy, here you go:"

I didn't click on those links, and not because I am lazy but because I took quite a few stats classes in college and understand the folly of extrapolation off of small samples. For someone who loves to come off as being learned in statistics, I find it curious that you provided a small sample set in an effort to disprove the validity of a larger sample (which appear to have been collected in a way which eliminated some of the variables influencing your data set). That isn't how statistics works.

 

[JFK]

I don’t understand what the argument is over, but it seems pretty simple to me. Larger group size equals better data. So whether that’s a 10, 20, or 100 shot group, the more you shoot and witness POI, the more confident you can be in your zero. This doesn’t seem like it should be a controversial idea.

 

[Formidilosus]

what was the barrel length used, gas length, how was upper assembled? How was the presumed upper set-up in the rest?

Wiseman Pneumatic Universal Receiver. There was no upper- the barrels are mounted only, gas port blocked, electronically fired. The Wiseman was permanently bolted to a 6,000 lb block of concrete set 6ft in the earth. The barrels for those three were 16” and 2x 14.5”. Twists were all 1-7”. Though in this context it doesn’t matter, the 16” and one 14.5” was mid gas, one 14.5” was carbine.


What I said in the beginning stands- the chart and conversion factors generally only work with rifles that are shooting consistent high shot group sizes (15-30) in MOA or less. It does not work for the vast majority of rifles that are really 2 MOA guns.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I don’t understand what the argument is over, but it seems pretty simple to me. Larger group size equals better data. So whether that’s a 10, 20, or 100 shot group, the more you shoot and witness POI, the more confident you can be in your zero. This doesn’t seem like it should be a controversial idea.

I think it’s mainly the gatekeeping that “3-5 shot groups aren’t useful”. “Must be 10 shots, or 10,000 shots from a robot arm”.

For real world hunters and shooters, for quick verification of accuracy testing 3-5 shot groups works fantastic. And have for a hundred years plus. More data is always better but coming in with completely unrealistic testing scenarios and practices for 99% of real world hunters and shooters, and then lambasting anyone who suggests 3-5 shot groups are fine, is the issue.

Do what works for you and has proven to work for you. If you have the means to shoot more or gather more days that’s great, use it, but anyone coming in saying “their way” is the only “proven” way makes them look like an arrogant fool.

 

[Formidilosus]

Out west where shots can be much longer and impacted more significantly by environmental factors you need a rifle with greater precision and a shooter that can place shots more accurately. However, in a hunting situation out west, how many times have guys on here had the opportunity to shoot more than 3 times?

That’s really not the way to look at it even if intuitively it seems to make sense. A better way to think about it is- how many shots do I need to fire on a single target to have a high probability (say 90-95%) that if I draw a circle around all rounds, that the center of the circle is the center of the cone that the gun will put any random bullet in? It’s mainly a zeroing thing. TK’s rifle above could shoot a single 3 shot “group” and be close enough off of that to hit big game animals even at pretty long ranges because his total cone is relatively small. However, he only know that because he shot a large number of shots to see what the cone is. For most rifles that 90%’ish confidence of seeing the center of the cone is between 20 and 30 rounds. That doesn’t mean that one needs to shoot 30 shot groups every time to zero, it means that every once and a while getting 10+ shots on a single target to confirm zero is a good idea.

Most big game hunting doesn’t require this, (even though lots of shots are missed at close ranges, and the first thing that is checked and generally adjusted is the zero), because big game is big. Most guns shoot well enough that a couple 3 shot groups will have the point of aim (POA) within a couple inches of true point of impact (POI).



The second thing that higher shot groups do is show the baseline target size in MOA that the system is capable of consistently hitting- 3 shots does not.

 

[Formidilosus]

I think it’s mainly the gatekeeping that “3-5 shot groups aren’t useful”. “Must be 10 shots, or 10,000 shots from a robot arm”.

No, that’s not true.

For real world hunters and shooters, for quick verification of accuracy testing 3-5 shot groups works fantastic. And have for a hundred years plus.

Neither is this. 100+/- years ago rifles were shot 20-50 shots for a single group, for any that were checked. That was very common. As the years went on and gunwriters became a thing trying to chase “1 MOA”, shot group sizes shrank to 10, to 5, then to 3, and now it’s becoming more common for people to say that 2 shots is a “group”. Even that a single shot “tells all you need to know”.

More data is always better but coming in with completely unrealistic testing scenarios and practices for 99% of real world hunters and shooters, and then lambasting anyone who suggests 3-5 shot groups are fine, is the issue.

So shooting your 3-5 shot groups all on the same target so you get a composite 15+ shot group is “completely unrealistic”?


How can a rifle be a 1 MOA gun, if it will not consistently on demand hit a 1 MOA target?

 

[Jbehredt]

This is why I like to shoot balloons with my hunting rifles. Make your first shot count and you don’t get a 2nd through 10th. 1 shot groups ftw

 

[MattB]

So your answer is "no". No you haven't gone out shooting to figure it out for yourself.

Figure what out what for myself? That my observations don't negate those of others (who perhaps employed better methods) because we achieved different outcomes? I already know that - and learned why in statistics class.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

No, that’s not true.





Neither is this. 100+/- years ago rifles were shot 20-50 shots for a single group, for any that were checked. That was very common. As the years went on and gunwriters became a thing trying to chase “1 MOA”, shot group sizes shrank to 10, to 5, then to 3, and now it’s becoming more common for people to say that 2 shots is a “group”. Even that a single shot “tells all you need to know”.




So shooting your 3-5 shot groups all on the same target so you get a composite 15+ shot group is “completely unrealistic”?


How can a rifle be a 1 MOA gun, if it will not consistently on demand hit a 1 MOA target?

Who said anything about “1 MOA gun”?

Let me give you a real world hunting and killing example not a robot arm lab example.

Every year I head up to northern Minnesota for family whitetail hunting. Every year on Wednesday before season opens on Saturday I site in anywhere from 8-12 rifles that probably 80% of only get used to this exact hunt.

Most rifles are still dead on and I usually shoot 3-5 rounds as to not waste their ammo. Some need some tweaks to the reticle and then get a final 3-5 group for final verification.

In your words above quoting my post you say that the above method is “not true”.

These hunters then go and kill 1-3 deer each with the aforementioned site it method. 90% of shots are 100-300 yards with some being closer and some being much further.

Combined, these hunters have killed thousands of deer for generations, using this exact method. This is realistic, repeatable year after year, and reputable with thousands of confirmed kills.

Explain how me shooting 10-12 rounds instead of 3-5 will change this real world scenario?

 

[Formidilosus]

Explain how me shooting 10-12 rounds instead of 3-5 will change this real world scenario?

It won’t- they’re not asking anything of their guns. Your rebuttable is that “average” people don’t even sight it their own rifles so we shouldn’t either?


Lots of “average” hunters don’t zero at all, unless hitting somewhere on paper counts as “zeroing”. Lots of average hunters don’t know what ammo their rifle is sighted in for, if they did. Lots of average hunters also have mixed ammo. Lots of average hunters just go with the boresight that the store did for them. Lots average hunters have 30-50% body fat, coronary disease, high BP, and diabetes and still kill deer from a stand- should we take their lead in health as well?

All in all, average isn’t a barometer of very much.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

It won’t- they’re not asking anything of their guns. Curious that your rebuttable is with people who don’t even sight it their own rifles. Why sight in at all? Why not just boresight?


Lots of “average” hunters don’t zero at all, unless hitting somewhere on paper counts as “zeroing”. Lots of average hunters don’t know what ammo their rifle is sighted in for, if they did. Lots of average hunters also have mixed ammo. Lots of average hunters just go with the boresight that the store did for them. Lots average hunters have 30-50% body fat, coronary disease, high BP, and diabetes and still kill deer from a stand- should we take their lead in health as well?

All in all, average isn’t a barometer of very much.

More gatekeeping of what a “real hunter” is. Got it. Sweet rebuttable. Stick to tunnels and robot arms Mr. “Above Average”.

 

[Formidilosus]

More gatekeeping of what a “real hunter” is. Got it. Sweet rebuttable. Stick to tunnels and robot arms Mr. “Above Average”.

You didn’t answer any of the questions. There’s no gate keeping, you’re holding an untenable position.

 

[MattB]

Meaning what? You also regularly shoot 2 to 3+ MOA 5-shot groups?

Post up some pictures and let's see your statistical evaluations of your observations.

Meaning, the fact you believe what you have done or what I have or have not done is material to the discussion is validation you are missing the point.

This won’t make any sense to you until you shoot some anomalous groups that defy explanation based on your chart - and then you will understand my point. But as long as you continue to believe it can’t happen because it hasn’t happened to you yet…