POA being disregarded to accuracy

[AkMtnRunner]

This is one subject that I've been thinking about for a while now but I never see it discussed enough. I am looking forward to hearing other and more experienced shooters providing their thoughts.

Accuracy being only measured among points of impact without regard to the point of aim. Yes, the POI's describe the rifle's accuracy but if it's not perfectly zero'd, the true (or effective) accuracy could be much worse. So many photos are shared of small groups but they are, to my memory, never centered around the POA. I would hope people are finalizing their zero before relying on shots that matter, but I do wonder how many are 'close enough' and figure that since the POI group is 1 MOA so is their total system. I think it would be pretty cool when meaningful accuracy is described to another, it is the distance between the POA and the farthest away impact of a significant number of rounds, and from different positions.

 

[sndmn11]

So many photos are shared of small groups but they are, to my memory, never centered around the POA. .[/I]

Flip several clicks into the windage so you're aiming point doesn't get eaten up. Return to zero and proof.

 

[Ice-kub]

Flip several clicks into the windage so you're aiming point doesn't get eaten up. Return to zero and proof.

What if you don't have one of the three scopes around that will actually return to zero? haha

 

[sndmn11]

What if you don't have one of the three scopes around that will actually return to zero? haha

Tell everyone it was wind, or you "didn't do your part"?

 

[JF_Idaho]

Precision = Tight Groups
Accuracy = POI/POA

That's what I always heard through the years.

 

[SDHNTR]

Tell everyone it was wind, or you "didn't do your part"?

Or I zero at 200 so groups are 1.5” high at 100.

 

[hereinaz]

IMO, it’s the same reason they are typically 3 shots. They don’t know or care about statistically significant proof.

If it were easily repeatable, they would click to zero and shoot a second group. Three shots are easier for three shots to randomly fall into a small group.

My last weekly long range tip hit on this a little with WEZ software from Applied Ballistics that will truly take into account statistical variances.

 

[wind gypsy]

Been saying it a lot lately but I'd love to see actual hit rates on 1 MOA targets the "sub MOA all day" guys can come up with.

This is a 10 shot group from last weekend at a 1 MOA dot. The group isn't that much over MOA. Many combos of 3 shot groups would have been sub MOA and the center of group is close to POA, yet 4 of 10 missed a 1” dot. If looking at center of impact, 5 of them missed!

 

[Harvey_NW]

So many photos are shared of small groups but they are, to my memory, never centered around the POA. I would hope people are finalizing their zero before relying on shots that matter, but I do wonder how many are 'close enough' and figure that since the POI group is 1 MOA so is their total system.

Agreed. I think a lot of those pictures are from test loads, but now I do larger sample zeroes.

 

[JF_Idaho]

I think there is validation to be made both ways.

There are far too many variables. It becomes hard to distinguish between the load/rifle and the shooter with longer strings.

If 10 is better than 5, then 100 should be better than 10. But it wouldnt be, because you start introducing fatigue, eye strain, stress about every $3 going down range for the magnum shooters, etc.

4 - 3 shot groups over the course of 4 days overlaying eachother would have far more statistical value than 1 string of 12. Especially if we're talking about a hunting rifle that cold bore shot is most important.

I'm usually a 5 shot group shooter.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to expand the conversation.

 

[Reburn]

It’s not that hard.

They talk about this on the shoot to hunt podcast doing load dev. Episode was murder bunnies.
Do the load dev then take the gun to 600 to make sure the groups stay together.
Some of us have been doing it like this for a while. Doesn’t have to all be ten shots. I don’t always do 10 shots at 600. However not doing at least 10 at 100 and getting an accurate zero is almost laziness. No calling fliers. No BS. Every shot counts. If you can't lay down and shoot 10 rounds at 100 without flinching or pulling the gun then you flinch like a mofo so get a smaller gun or take up knitting.
shots are not numbered in order.

 

[hereinaz]

I think there is validation to be made both ways.

There are far too many variables. It becomes hard to distinguish between the load/rifle and the shooter with longer strings.

If 10 is better than 5, then 100 should be better than 10. But it wouldnt be, because you start introducing fatigue, eye strain, stress about every $3 going down range for the magnum shooters, etc.

4 - 3 shot groups over the course of 4 days overlaying eachother would have far more statistical value than 1 string of 12. Especially if we're talking about a hunting rifle that cold bore shot is most important.

I'm usually a 5 shot group shooter.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to expand the conversation.

Good point about fatigue and user error. One way might be doing it 5 times a range session with 3 shot groups. Then going back 5 times. No eye fatigue and lay them all up on top of each other.

Most shooters I see out there, couldn’t call their own shots reliably. Even I find it hard as I get back into shooting after a couple years barely getting a few hundred down range and no dry fire.

In the end, a person is always involved in the shot, so the whole “do my part” is just a logical fallacy to support their irrational and statistically improbable claim that the 3 shot group represents “what the gun can do.”

As a rule, the 3 shot group isn’t super helpful unless you are controlling variables like a f class shooter and you already have thousands and hundreds of shots on a rifle system.

 

[wind gypsy]

It’s not that hard.

They talk about this on the shoot to hunt podcast doing load dev. Episode was murder bunnies.
Do the load dev then take the gun to 600 to make sure the groups stay together.
Some of us have been doing it like this for a while. Doesn’t have to all be ten shots. I don’t always do 10 shots at 600. However not doing at least 10 at 100 and getting an accurate zero is almost laziness. No calling fliers. No BS. Every shot counts. If you can't lay down and shoot 10 rounds at 100 without flinching or pulling the gun then you flinch like a mofo so get a smaller gun or take up knitting.
shots are not numbered in order.

View attachment 614682
View attachment 614681

Have you ever had 2 loads that shot the same @ 100 and were demonstrably different @ 600 in a way that wouldn't have been predicted by chrono readings?

 

[gelton]

Just had my Weatherby Vanguard backcountry re-barreled with a 24" proof carbon Sendero with an SRS brake. I also had some custom work done on the bolt and a stockys VG2 inletted for Atlasworx bottom metal and bedded - I am still doing a bit of load development but getting pretty dang close.

I have 38 rounds through it, with 16 more to shoot just to test against the group below, including ES and SD, and I will be done. It's a .300 wm slinging 215 gr Bergers @ 2925 fps. I will probably do a write up on it once I am done...pretty happy with it so far

The OP makes a good point though, many of the photos we see are of great groups but the focus clearly doesn't seem to be around the POA.

 

[Reburn]

Have you ever had 2 loads that shot the same @ 100 and were demonstrably different @ 600 in a way that wouldn't have been predicted by chrono readings?

No. Not anything that wasn't on the ragged edge of stability because of twist.
However. I have found that ES and SD make almost no determination of how the gun groups at distance. Seeing 60-80 ES and 20 SD doesn't concern me anymore. I just dont see the vertical dispersion that mathmatically SHOULD be there due to those ES and SD numbers.

 

[WCB]

Are we going to have another discussion about Cones?

 

[Harvey_NW]

Are we going to have another discussion about Cones?

 

[wind gypsy]

Are we going to have another discussion about Cones?

 

[Flyjunky]

No. Not anything that wasn't on the ragged edge of stability because of twist.
However. I have found that ES and SD make almost no determination of how the gun groups at distance. Seeing 60-80 ES and 20 SD doesn't concern me anymore. I just dont see the vertical dispersion that mathmatically SHOULD be there due to those ES and SD numbers.

I’ve experienced the same and I’ve heard it repeated by many who shoot a lot at distance. You’d think a big es would lead to vertical but it’s not always apparent on paper. I think positive compensation has something to do with it.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

Are we going to have another discussion about Cones?

Hopefully not any more than what’s already been brought up. The original post is specifically about the POA and how badly it may be offset from the cone. But, good to note that this offset will enlarge the cone that much more.