3 shot groups are useless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Honestly???? I'm fooked if I know any more..... We should all waste lots of ammunition to prove our penis size??? I really can't work out why so many of us who are happy with three shots to sight in,are suddenly somehow wrong...I mean four times three equals twelve....and if I have four times,put three shots close together....and if I superimposed those four targets the holes would still be close together... You almost coming across as mechanic who insists on doing extra work on car..before it's needed. So unless you have financial interest in folks using up seven additional rounds...yeah fooked if I know.

---

I don't think anyone is saying your wrong for using 3 shot groups to zero/check your rifle for what you want to achieve. Gimp is just saying ( I think) that in HIS opinion a 3 shot group doesn't provide enough data on it's own to establish a cone of fire for a given rifle with a given load.

Taking my recent experience, many of the "3 shot" groups within my 10 RND groups looked good BUT the cone of fire over the 10 RNDS was far from good until I ironed out what wasn't working in my system. So if a 3 RND group is shooting sub MOA but 30 RNDS (spread over say 6 x 5 RND groups) is shooting a 6" cone of fire at 100m then I don't have a reliably consistent system that I can confidently shoot out to say 300m.

But if I'm consistently shooting multiple 3 RND (like you mentioned) groups within a 50mm radius then my cone of fire over 30 RNDS is going to show itself to be suitable for reliably knocking an animal over at 300M and that surely is the point, to have a system that you can rely on, every single day (shooter error aside) to put your bullet inside the 8" circle so that you don't have to go running all over the countryside looking for a fallow that you've gut shot.....that's my understanding anyway

This 20 shot or what ever cone of fire that measures precision talked about here. Isn't shooter error just inherently built into the results. The results represent the whole system, and the shooter is part of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

This 20 shot or what ever cone of fire that measures precision talked about here. Isn't shooter error just inherently built into the results. The results represent the whole system, and the shooter is part of it?

---

I would say so yes and I'd offer that shooter error is generally a consistent variable. By which I mean that each shooter will have a quirk that "throws" his aim and we will each correct our zero to account for that (we may not know WHAT we are accounting for but if I check my zero and I'm high and right and I re-dial my zero so that POI is within coo-ee of POA then I've dialled out my "shooter error") watching Norways video's he has a shooting practice exercise that will identify WHERE the individual shooters error is coming from, slapping the trigger, not properly behind the gun etc, it's fascinating stuff. Anyway, back to the topic in hand. If I always shoot the same way, then my shooter error will be consistent, flyers will be when I KNOW I did something outside of my normal shooting technique.

So, establishing an acceptable cone of fire is done so with the shooter error as part of the "system" Unless of course you're talking about the kind of shooter error where I shoot and think "well that was a balls-up" because I snatched the shot, no cone of fire can account for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

This 20 shot or what ever cone of fire that measures precision talked about here. Isn't shooter error just inherently built into the results. The results represent the whole system, and the shooter is part of it?

---

I think so...and I deteriorate with each shot fired. My concentration is a finite resource (especially as I get older) and even more so with anything bigger than the 223. That doesn't mean Gimp and Tentman aren't spot on. I want to be as precise as possible out 600 yards and I've wasted a lot of time chasing my zero because I didn't fully appreciate my true cone of fire.

Having said that the 6.5x55 shoots consistent .3 inch three shot groups...so the cone of fire shouldn't be too bad. But now that I know I need to know, that's just how it is for me. Shooting is the sport (rather than hunting alone) and without that element I might not even own a rifle.

I need to start overlaying my shots from different days or take the billy and have naps...or get a longer barreled 223 and pull it back a bit.

Something is consistent not sure if its me the rifles or the ammo but they look the same.
Attachment 286322
Different loads shot 20 mins apart poi shift with the factory 156 gr (black square was poa).
Attachment 286323
A two shot group a month later with the 6.5x57.







Attachment 286324

My take on this thread is some like shit loads of data, others just want to zero or recheck their zero whichever way works/ has worked for them for years and gets them animals. I’m also of the opinion that unless you’re shooting off something like a SEB or Joypid rest and rear bag, and isolating shooter error as much as possible, then you’re hardly likely to truely establish the cone of fire for a particular rifle system. Who cares how many shots you fire in a group. If you have a system that works for you keep using i, KISS. Just my 2c. Now off to do some RO duties at Marlborough Champs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john m

Something is consistent not sure if its me the rifles or the ammo but they look the same.
Attachment 286322
Different loads shot 20 mins apart poi shift with the factory 156 gr (black square was poa).
Attachment 286323
A two shot group a month later with the 6.5x57.







Attachment 286324

---

That's all well and good, but the set in stone reality is that most rifles zeroed with three shots will be be off true zero by an unknown amount, maybe just a click with a good system like yours (an 1.5'' at 600) which is small enough to only very rarely effect the outcome. But two or three clicks and the error begins to really matter given the cone of fire at 600 yards will almost inevitably be 6 inches or worse.

A with two click error a potential three inches from point of aim doubles to 6 inches which really matters...and that's before you before you throw in wind calls, awkward positions etc.

There is no doubt that at extended range (given target size) three shot groups (or a misunderstanding of the reality of our systems true accuracy) will contribute to less than ideal outcomes.

I'm no psych but I can see my own resistance to reality because it suits me better to ignore it...but now I know because of persistent (and annoying) "disrupters" who see the tribe's error and can't resist beating their drum. And that's by design, because one day the tribes representative in the hunt will wound that deer and it will escape, and on the wrong day that will be doom for its people.

All good fun I reckon...and the forum would become meaningless (to me anyway) without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woods223

My take on this thread is some like shit loads of data, others just want to zero or recheck their zero whichever way works/ has worked for them for years and gets them animals. I’m also of the opinion that unless you’re shooting off something like a SEB or Joypid rest and rear bag, and isolating shooter error as much as possible, then you’re hardly likely to truely establish the cone of fire for a particular rifle system. Who cares how many shots you fire in a group. If you have a system that works for you keep using i, KISS. Just my 2c. Now off to do some RO duties at Marlborough Champs.

---

I think what needs to be stated too, as I see some comments referencing just sight in and go hunting. This particular forum is a shooting forum. It's a bit pointless dismissing guys who wish, in this forum to go beyond what's necessary for ordinary hunting. it might not even be hunting related. Kind of reminds me when I think about it, of the guys who used to proclaim checking zero on an apple box at 25 yards.
In fact on the hunting aspect. Given Im often critical of longer range hunting, It would be hypocritical of me not to applaud anyone who gos to full length to establish the ethical distance their system is capable of.

The short range checking was promoted years ago.
I used to do it then go back to 100yrds, but then to check nothing terribly amiss had happened a bore sight with an empty deprimed case was good enough.
Mind I was pretty poor so wasn't swapping scopes rifles or loads all the time.
I got into reloading when a box of .303 hit $48 bucks early 80s this was a bit when on bugger all wages.
10 shot groups would've been a expensive proposition.
But I do respect the ability of the really good shooters to get the best out of their gear.

I see a ten shot group and think "wow the weather stayed really consistent while you wasted 7 shots"

If your rifle can group 3 then it is precise enough and you are accurate enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.FOYE

I see a ten shot group and think "wow the weather stayed really consistent while you wasted 7 shots"

---

Relevant for Jaffa's as YOUR weather is THAT changeable.................

You might want to check out what a "Cone of fire" is actually used for . The bastardised version used currently shows nothing but that those wish to appear knowledgeable.
I'm yet to see anything crediblle in this thread , surely " Someone will rid me of this troublesome priest".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tankd

You might want to check out what a "Cone of fire" is actually used for . The bastardised version used currently shows nothing but that those wish to appear knowledgeable.
I'm yet to see anything crediblle in this thread , surely " Someone will rid me of this troublesome priest".

---

Originally from Machine gun gunnery theory, where the differing trajectories of individual rounds would/should paint a circular pattern on a 2d paper target. The two biggest (of many) factors were the gunners stability and control and those factors directly correlate, imo to any firearm and it's accuracy and so also produce a cone of fire...it's just slower

well I think we could all agree whats worse is the hunter who has his scope fitted by a gun store - crudely zeroed with an alingment device -is told there ya go its zeroed - knows no better - and sets of hunting - time and again have struck hunters - zeroed your rifle - yup bloke in the shop did it for me - ohhh on a range -nah he had a scope aligner - well then 3 shot zero on a range would be of real benefit - and yes more would be even better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tankd

You might want to check out what a "Cone of fire" is actually used for . The bastardised version used currently shows nothing but that those wish to appear knowledgeable.
I'm yet to see anything crediblle in this thread , surely " Someone will rid me of this troublesome priest".

---

If you want to learn more just check out bryan litz,Tod Hoddnett, and kestrel meters and research WEZ .
This iz part of a hit probability formula.
These guys actually know what they are talking about.
I myself haven't dived into it fully as it would mean upgrading my kestrel but I get the gist of it.

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk