https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&so...y8MZYUdldE3cnw
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
Printable View
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&so...y8MZYUdldE3cnw
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
What do you want mate.
Do you think that everyboy should shooot like a 50 thousand shot group to sort out their hunting, or do you think that a check on zero every now and then is professional enough.
Checking zero is fine with 3 shot groups. Making comments on the inherent accuracy of your rifle with a three shot group isn't helpful.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
I don't know exactly what you are getting at here?
For deer hunting I get you're not shooting strings of bullets, so I understand that the first 3 shots are critical. Deer rifles also tend to be pencil profile barrels which are prone to wandering when hot. Hence why so many people are reluctant to shoot larger groups. What I'm saying is that three shots is not enough to see how accurate the rifle is. If you overlayed say two-three three shot groups then you could, with a great deal of confidence, say that your next shot will fall somewhere within the area contained within those previous six-nine shots. However if you just use one three shot group there is quite a high percentage chance your next shot will fall outside the area bounded by your initial three shots. Therefore three shot groups should not be used as a gauge on the accuracy of a rifle and therefore what range it can reliably kill any given game. Also because of the relative ease of producing a small 3 shot group from an inaccurate rifle I would not put much store in somebody touting their rifle is half MOA and showing you a single 3 shot group.
I agree three shot groups do fit a purpose and that purpose is checking a rifle is still zeroed.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
I think we are all arguing semantics here. In one breath you are saying three shot groups are not good enough then you are saying three shot groups are good enough. I think what you mean is A three shot group is not enough, but three shot groups (overlaid/repeatable) are. No one here is talking about A three shot group but repeatable three shot or single shot groups.
One shot groups works for me :thumbsup:
There is a fairly predictable curve when it comes to 3 shot vs 5 shot vs 10 shot. Brian Litz has an entire chapter on dispersion in his latest book.
I think people also confuse an undefined "consistent point of impact" for 1 or 2 shots with a hunting rifle with accuracy and precision.
To me, whatever claim you make must be repeatable. And it also needs to be seen in the context of statistical probability. If you claim that you shoot 0.5 MOA groups, then it should be something that you can demonstrate on a regular basis, not just a single fluke 3 shot group you shot once in your life :-)
Even if you take all the external factors out (shooter, barrel heating up, wind etc) there is a normal amount of dispersion for any system.
And to all the 3-shot group guys on here, shoot a 3 X 3 X 3 grid on a single page, allowing enough time for the barrel to cool down.... :P
So an 18 shot group? You target fullas are weird :D
Oi Feather!, so I have a4 targets for practice at the range, 4x 1" dots as aim point with 1" boxes at exactly +3". Four target boxes per a4.
My rifles get set up to hold at +3" at the 110yd, as my standard zero. So by your argument, the fact that I can put all of my rounds, in sets of three, inside each box, and do it every single time, every single day, still means that my rifle is , " inaccurate". Tell that to the animals I have killed with those rifles out to 400, and occasionally past.
And where the hell do you get the idea that all deer rifles have "pencil barrels"?
Please tell me how to fix my inaccurate rifles..........
With 18 shots (or 27 if my maths are right), it is not an animal you are hunting, but an army of zombies!
If you overlay those four targets on top of one another then you can make comments on how accurate your rifle is.
If your rifle shoots inside of an inch for every group then you have a sub MOA rifle.
If you shoot one of those groups at 1/4" you don't have a quarter minute rifle.
And why the hell are you aiming at a dot that is an inch big at 110 yards? Dots are too imprecise. Diamonds will line your crosshairs up way better.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
Hows all this going for you @Floody? You get any answers?
To the 5'rs and 3'rs I say just this. A 5, 10, 18 shot group say more about the consistancy of your AMMO, crosswind conditions, your ability to deal with fatigue and mirage off barrel heat. Shooting for pure precision, my vote is on the 3 shot. Half the time a 5 shot will mangle the POI to shit anyway ('yeah right' they say in unison)
I actually don't understand this opinion. "For pure precision", does this mean you can get smaller groups with a 3 shot group? With this argument why not go for two or one shot groups? Dispose the inaccurate ones and say you have a laser shooter of a rifle.
An accurate rifle will shoot tiny 3 shot groups. Tiny 3 shot groups looked at individually does not mean an accurate rifle.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
What is POI? Point of impact?
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
No I'm not. What on earth gave you that idea? Why do you take it so personally?
My 22-250 has a barrel that has probably done 2000+ shots on it and groups consistently within .8" at 100 m (hunting conditions, no bags), 5 shot group that is. Extrapolate that out and it gives me 2.4"at 300 m in ideal conditions. I bring my maximum sighting range in quite a lot in wind as I'm only shooting 55 gr's. Rabbits have a kill zone of about 4". That would mean it's possible for me to hit rabbits at 400 m but very unlikely. Longest 1 shot kill on rabbits 337 m.
I'd say that is an adequate rifle for purpose, but nothing to write home about. Will chase better accuracy and range when I rebarrel. It shoots great 3 shot groups though hahaha, but I always shoot a couple more and fuck it up 😝
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
Not personal, quite frankly don't care. Just seemed everyone elses idea of accurate was not good enough :)
If the rifle is defective you will not be able to make a string of 'tiny 3 shot groups'. So the ability to shoot them does clearly demonstrate the rifle's cold to warm barrelled precision.
*Have a try of this - do a run of 5x 3shot groups and take the average, then again do 3x 5shot groups and take the average.
I reckon there's a good chance you will actually get a higher average with the 3 shot groups as you've had to break your position more often.
Just a working theory - If I remember to do this I'll post up my results (like the wildly flung monkey excrement they may be - just warning everyone in advance)
Only just read bits of this thread, 3 shots is enough for me for my hunting rifles.
Here's a group I shot this morning developing a load for the swede I got off buzzman a couple of weeks back.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...5cacc0db47.jpg
I then went out to 400 and put two shots dead centre 2.5" apart, good enough for me. Only 10x scope.
Time to show it a deer.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
I don't see this claim being made. If the question is how well a rifle shoots and how far to progress load development, then discussing the means of quantifying this seems reasonable. Samples size follows a diminishing returns curve as a predictor of population, so while I wouldn't myself make use of 18-shot group data IMHO it is a mistake to use 3-shot groups as a predictor of where subsequent shots will impact when 5-6 shots are so much better. As has been pointed out this is more significant for quantifying shot dispersion than for estimating the true point of aim. Load development using 3-shot groups is more likely to lead to incorrect conclusions being made than if Feather or Shoot's advice is taken. This type of thing gets aired on this site quite regularly; pictures posted of a number of groups with requests for interpretation, when all the groups - being 3-shot groups- are statistically the sort of normal variation one would expect from a fixed load.
Bit of an experiment today.
Got a mate over I work with.
He is ex navy but has only fired military weapons and a .22 prior to coming to stay with me.
He is not a hunter or has he ever fired a hunting centerfire.
I needed to fireform some cases so I let him fire 10 rounds at 100 yrds in 50 mins.
His first shot was perfect but he and I were not happy with the next 3 that went left and had a vertical spread.
I adjusted his position as best I could and explained a few principals we all employ.
Either he listened or fluked everything.😆
Not bad at all. 7 rnds 3/4 of an inch once he was sorted.
He put 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 where they should be.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e7b948ac09.jpg
Pretty sure my rifle is accurate😆
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
@Gibo, I think we got a little Side tracked! I think I'll stick to 3 shot groups. And I would like to get better than an at 100m for my small game/varminting loads, which seems to be going ok for me!
Accurate ammo, use the mean group radius. Fire 24 10 shot groups, measure the distance between shots and average them all. Then you will know the accuracy of that ammunition in that rifle. If you end up shooting out the barrel and having it replaced then of course you will have to start all over again.
Otherwise if you are happy with the results of whatever groups you are shooting now stick with that.
I'm guessing this is a piss take pro 3 shot group post. If you shoot out your barrel with 240 shots you have a stupid calibre rifle,...but no ones suggesting you do that. Shooting single 3 shot groups to gauge the accuracy of a load is deceiving and likely to give you false results. Increasing your group size by a measly 2-3 shots, OR shooting 2x3 shot groups with each load and overlaying them will give you much better indication of the accuracy of the load. Better yet do them through a chrony.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk