3 shot groups are useless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Do you go for headshots at those ranges Trout? While I used to shoot magpie and hares in a similar vein too your rock shooting. I pretty much almost always "chickened out" of headshots and went for the shoulder. Or base of neck if needed

---

Do about 3 or 4 lower neck shots per yr only inside about 100-200yds,mostly sholder shots,problem solved.Dont bother with head shots,deer skulls are only a small boney structure.Very easy to fk up yr shot and leave a deer running wounded.99% of my deer are shot off the bonnect of my truck like my shooting at the range.So im well practice with my shooting position.All deer are shot on open flat country that iv been on for the last 10yrs.Cant wait to till spring.

the old DOC shoot was 4 stages 5 rounds each stage at 100 yards - one lying ( elbows only ) one kneeling one standing all shot in ones own time - and one run 5 yards load and shoot in I think it was 10 seconds - to practice for it I used to just practice standing and the run and load - that was the hardest to master well - but I dont bother with head shots over 100 m - despite the fact that my .222 and 308 are likely capable out to 200 - seldom have time for a decent rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I think thats what a few of us might have been arguing.:D

---

I think the difference is in what we consider the limitations to be, and what we consider wasting time/ammo.


I consider that 3 or even 5 shot groups taken in isolation don't tell us enough to be meaningful IF we want to make an accurate statement about our rifle system's performance, IF we wish to understand the effects of "load development" OR if we wish to have higher confidence in hitting things consistently at longer ranges, and it's much more efficient and wastes less time/ammo to just shoot enough shots to gather enough data to be better informed. If our interest is limited to shooting deer at a couple of hundred metres, these discussions are probably not the right ones to get involved in, as it is explicitly not about that subject.


My suggested approach is to do less fiddling with things that don't give us any real evidence - just get a good amount of data and go use it. 3-shot seating depth tests, 3-shot powder charge tests, 3-shot zero then trying to shoot long range and "true" BC or muzzle velocity - all are more likely a waste of ammo and time.

Note that also "gathering data from more shots" doesn't mean you have to go fire 10 rounds back-to-back if you're worried your rifle will "walk" or "open up" with that. Shoot 10 individual shots with complete cooling in between. Actually record where they fall and plot those relative to each other.

There are a series of good questions that arise from this thread that those who have an interest in gaining a clearer understanding of the technical aspects could empirically test with data for themselves, and the wider benefit of the community. Some of these that come to mind are:


- How consistent is the POI of a "cold bore" (fouled or clean) shot, and does a meaningful sample of these look any different from the dispersion of the same number of shots from warm barrels?

- Does barrel heat actually change the dispersion of your rifle system? Or is it simply that a larger number of shots gives a more true picture of the true dispersion?

- What is the actual precision capability of your rifle system? How well do groups of various sizes represent that?

- What is the actual velocity, and velocity variation of your rifle system?

- How well zeroed actually is your rifle?


I don't mind shooting a few rounds at the range to help build the knowledge of the community and I don't consider it a waste



I have spent enough time around shooters in situations like LR target shooting days to observe that the average shooter's self-assessment of their ability to hit things at longer ranges consistently is usually not based on much evidence, and is much higher than reality. Aside from shooter proficiency effects and junk gear, the next biggest issues are poor zero and poor data.

You are a reloading scientist gimp,well done.Im not,just a cold bore shooter.I just know hornady ammo,velocitys,drops and what my rifle can do out to 400yds.Its the repeatabilty iv had for the last 20yrs that helps me drop deer.

Sounds like a new hot opportunity for a new gizmo to market, an adjustable, portable and consistent barrel pre-heater, no more need for the first five shots in a ten-shot group.

I don't believe I'm anything other than a very average shooter as far as proficiency. I certainly don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise

It would be a difficult statistical exercise determining what "average shooting proficiency" is.

Bugger the barrel,keep my hands warm in the nights watching deer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shearer

It would be a difficult statistical exercise determining what "average shooting proficiency" is.

---

Some would keep their targets fill of holes for compititons,other would keep their freezers fill of meat.

I like both, one sharpens the other. Going hunting tonight!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trout

Some would keep their targets fill of holes for compititons,other would keep their freezers fill of meat.

---

It is possible to be interested in, or do, more than 1 thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tentman

I like both, one sharpens the other. Going hunting tonight!

---

Good luck getting some meat.Il watch rugby,gota support the kiwi teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

I think the difference is in what we consider the limitations to be, and what we consider wasting time/ammo.


I consider that 3 or even 5 shot groups taken in isolation don't tell us enough to be meaningful IF we want to make an accurate statement about our rifle system's performance, IF we wish to understand the effects of "load development" OR if we wish to have higher confidence in hitting things consistently at longer ranges, and it's much more efficient and wastes less time/ammo to just shoot enough shots to gather enough data to be better informed. If our interest is limited to shooting deer at a couple of hundred metres, these discussions are probably not the right ones to get involved in, as it is explicitly not about that subject.


My suggested approach is to do less fiddling with things that don't give us any real evidence - just get a good amount of data and go use it. 3-shot seating depth tests, 3-shot powder charge tests, 3-shot zero then trying to shoot long range and "true" BC or muzzle velocity - all are more likely a waste of ammo and time.

Note that also "gathering data from more shots" doesn't mean you have to go fire 10 rounds back-to-back if you're worried your rifle will "walk" or "open up" with that. Shoot 10 individual shots with complete cooling in between. Actually record where they fall and plot those relative to each other.

There are a series of good questions that arise from this thread that those who have an interest in gaining a clearer understanding of the technical aspects could empirically test with data for themselves, and the wider benefit of the community. Some of these that come to mind are:


- How consistent is the POI of a "cold bore" (fouled or clean) shot, and does a meaningful sample of these look any different from the dispersion of the same number of shots from warm barrels?

- Does barrel heat actually change the dispersion of your rifle system? Or is it simply that a larger number of shots gives a more true picture of the true dispersion?

- What is the actual precision capability of your rifle system? How well do groups of various sizes represent that?

- What is the actual velocity, and velocity variation of your rifle system?

- How well zeroed actually is your rifle?


I don't mind shooting a few rounds at the range to help build the knowledge of the community and I don't consider it a waste



I have spent enough time around shooters in situations like LR target shooting days to observe that the average shooter's self-assessment of their ability to hit things at longer ranges consistently is usually not based on much evidence, and is much higher than reality. Aside from shooter proficiency effects and junk gear, the next biggest issues are poor zero and poor data.

---

Yeah. It comes back to my first post.

Quote:

---

Useless for what?

---

I think you just answered it correctly. My post you replied too was Tongue in cheek, But its given a useful prop for your answer. Though im not sure initially that it was that explicitly laid out.
Hence my Mott and Bailey comment earlier as well.
Probably the only point of contention would be where most of us who focus more on hunting and use 3 shots are not limiting ourselves too 200 yards. While we dont need the structure of absolute potential you lay out. We do need an idea of whether our rifle can do the job we want out too say 400.
I think you mention a very relevant point re the shooters at LR events and their impressions of their own capabilities. Contrast that with the guys answering on here, who seem to have a much better idea of their limits and do limit themselves.
I would also suggest that given the ranges we seem to be shooting at, while we might not be out firing the consistent number of shots straight out of the box so to speak. We are probably cogent enough to be adding too our data over time as we check our zeros or make small adjustments.

Hornady podcast about this topic.

https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?si=WdxbljnpXvD5JMzT

Interesting vid stug,but at $4 or $5 a rd,I won't be firing 10 -20 groups.Il stick to these one shots groups fired 10minuts apart.Good enough for hunting.Im not going in the Olympic shooting team.lols
Attachment 252120
Hornday superformance ssts 165gr is very accurate out to 400-500yds,deer have found that out.

@Trout repeat that exercise 10 or 20 times, combine all the targets and you have a 20 shot group. The main thrust of the podcast was that the larger the sample size the smaller the variability between groups,

Ye I gathered that,more shots,more info.

Best i can do is 9 shots in 15 minutes using Hornady ssts 165gr(2016)
1st group after light cleaning of barrel.Pension doesn't allow this these days at $5 a rd.Excuse the bic pen scribble.
Attachment 252122
Enough info here to drop a big stag 296ds the next morning.lols

Here are some of my targets from last weekends Zuppa benchrest shoot, this is with my light varmint rifle (up to 10.5lbs)

You have seven minutes to shoot your score group with unlimited sighters, first group is 10 mins

This is all 5 shot groups with 6 PPC at 100 yards. measurements are thousands of an inch, there wasn't much wind at all, all weekend, we have 4 good flags to 100 so "know" what's going on...yeah right :ORLY:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...720&fit=bounds

Christ knows what happened in my first group, one just took off high, my neighbour was watching and couldn't understand how it happened either :XD:

The 0.88 & 0.146 were shot in the same condition, conditions clearly my rifle liked, I stuffed the 4th shot on the 0.146 otherwise it would have been closer to 0.88

Here are my groups at 200 yards, another two flags out to 200 so 6 flags in total & bugger all wind to talk about

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...720&fit=bounds

For reference I came 4th out of 8 at 100 & 2nd at 200 placing me 2nd overall for light gun & I managed the same in heavy gun with a different rifle & 2nd over all for both which is the 2 gun, the main event

So what I'm getting at here is my light rifle & arguably my heavy rifle (which normally shoots better) are genuine 0.1 moa 5 shot rifles but only in the right conditions without an idiot driving them

Trust me when someone else (your partner) is driving the same rifles & loads & beating you, you figure out pretty quickly you aren't as good at shooting as she is :)

For what its worth I shot both these barrels for the first time at the nationals (the last shoot) with the same load & came 1st overall out of 15

Most of the time the rifle & load is good/great, shooting at the right time & conditions (that you can see) makes the difference

Comparing these rifles, rests etc to a hunting rifle is like comparing your Corolla to a F1 car

When you think about it, with all the variables, is incredible we can have two or more projectiles touching at 100 plus :cool:

My Nissan Patrol better than a Corolla.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trout

My Nissan Patrol better than a GR Corolla.:D

---

:thumbsup:

Depends what you want to use it for :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trout

My Nissan Patrol better than a Corolla.:D

---

The poor old Nissan will be down the road when you win the NZDA raffle Toyota though :)

Gidday All

Went to the range this arvo (after spending 3 hours hunting on Friday night with the wind constantly shifting to be up our arse = no shots fired) but the weather was poor, it was pissing down,and anyone who wears glasses will appreciate how difficult it is to shoot good groups in these sorts of conditions,
I'd say the weather added 0.5 to 0.75 MOA to groups, at times I practically had to guess where to shoot.

Anyhoo here are the raw results from two of my favorite hunting rifles, 9 shots each at 100M from a very light Weatherby "varmintmaster" 22-250 and my heavy "long range" rifle - a Savage 6.5/284 (which isn't by any means actually heavy, it has one of @camowsm s Bartelin "featherweight" barrels and is about 4.3 kgs). I have Ballistis-× analysis of the initial 3 shots as well as the final 9 shots which give some interesting results. I'll post these up after dinner.

Attachment 252220

The target paper got very wet so the bullet holes are a bit squidggy!

Here are the initial 3 shot groups for each rifle.

Attachment 252231

Attachment 252232

Two pretty medioce 3 shot groups, if you were doing load development theres a fair chance you'd pass them by, the 22-250 at 1.2 MOA and the 6.6-284 at 1.3 MOA. Bear in mind that the conditions were probably adding a something approacing 0.5 MOA to the groups I think Id achieve on a decent day.

And in the 9 shot groups is written why these two rifles are favorites of mine for hunting . . . . Minimal change in group size and crucially a rock solid POI from a 3 shot group to 3 x3 shot groups placed on top of each other. Would you learn this from even a series of separate 3 shot groups?

Attachment 252233

Attachment 252234

Cheers

interesting you SEEM to be a little bit left with both rifles on any 3 consecutive shots as a group, and indeed on all 9 as a group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

interesting you SEEM to be a little bit left with both rifles on any 3 consecutive shots as a group, and indeed on all 9 as a group

---

Haha yup. Either I had a bit of cant on today, or I zeroed with a bit more westerly than I thought - or vice versa!. I don't usually sweat a click or two off on a hunting rifle. But I noticed as I packed up that I'd committed the cardinal sin of dial up shooting - hadn't would the elevation off after the last time I used the rifle - hence the high zero on the 6.5-284.

probably the biggest reason I avoid dial up scopes. My foray down that path was frustrating. And short lived.

You get use to it pretty quickly

Yeah like anything you have to practice a system until it becomes second nature.
Over the years for myself Ive developed a simple is better approach that caters for 90% of the situations I find myself in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tentman

Haha yup. Either I had a bit of cant on today, or I zeroed with a bit more westerly than I thought - or vice versa!. I don't usually sweat a click or two off on a hunting rifle. But I noticed as I packed up that I'd committed the cardinal sin of dial up shooting - hadn't would the elevation off after the last time I used the rifle - hence the high zero on the 6.5-284.

---

Seen too many guys do exactly that. Some even with unmarked turrets who, later, can't remember the number of clicks to return the scope to zero. Good system for those guys who always remember but not for me. It would lead to major cockups somewhere along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30.06king

Seen too many guys do exactly that. Some even with unmarked turrets who, later, can't remember the number of clicks to return the scope to zero. Good system for those guys who always remember but not for me. It would lead to major cockups somewhere along the way.

---

Zero stop on 100 meters so can't go wrong. Walk around hunting with it on zero= 100 meters then even in the dark can feel the next raised dot = 200 meters and so on then once shot is taken wind back until it can't go any further = 100 meters again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mm Rem Mag

Zero stop on 100 meters so can't go wrong. Walk around hunting with it on zero= 100 meters then even in the dark can feel the next raised dot = 200 meters and so on then once shot is taken wind back until it can't go any further = 100 meters again.

---

I accept that your method would work fine. Still gotta remember to re zero the turret after the shot and then check the setting prior to making the next shot which sometimes is overlooked by the shooter.
IIRC on one or two of the Duley shows misses were attributed to improper checks or settings. But, when it all goes right it definitely can make for some spectacular shooting.

A broad generalisation here. I think there are two basic types. One type enjoys the technology side and tinkering. Getting absolutely everything from there equipment.

The other type sees new tech as getting in the way of their basic enjoyment and proficiency. Im definitely the second type. ill work up a load, and then use that one load for, in the case of my last rifle, for 9-10,000 shots without ever thinking I should try something else. I must admit I get very frustrated hunting with type 1. watching them play with the app, make the clicks etc. My mind is going "Just shoot the Effing thing!"

There is a balance in this, hunting is not tinkering time. My checklist with all newer guys I take hunting . . .. Who's in front and shooting first (mention rules for "readiness") Scope power to minimum, discuss rifle zero (and check its on zero if a dialup) and aiming point(s) - no behind the shoulder shots!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tentman

There is a balance in this, hunting is not tinkering time. My checklist with all newer guys I take hunting . . .. Who's in front and shooting first (mention rules for "readiness") Scope power to minimum, discuss rifle zero (and check its on zero if a dialup) and aiming point(s) - no behind the shoulder shots!

---

Tight behind the shoulder/crease is my preferred shot with the .223. I guess you are meaning too far back and low where the green stuff starts?

Telling an inexperienced shooter to "go up the leg" gives them an aiming point that is not hard to mistake . ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tentman

Telling an inexperienced shooter to "go up the leg" gives them an aiming point that is not hard to mistake . ...

---

Yeah. Understood.

The simple method. Using the same bullet (80 ELDM) but different brass (Ammo Inc) and powder (2206h). Load 20rd at book max, some misc distance off the lands.

10 shots at 100m, 20mm. Good. 1 click left for zero. Velocity at target range (2700), SD is what it is (15 across those 10 shots. Fine)

3 shots plate centre at 400, 600, dropped one off plate edge at 800 in the wind, 2 plate centre. Done. Attachment 253387

Nice. So this is the future as it's going to apply to me . . . . I'm going to always buy/build rifles with the barrel as the primary focus - hence I don't see too many factory rifles in my future, sure some like Lithgows, Sakos & Tikkas (occasionally) can shoot pretty well, they are still nothing like a good custom barrel like a Krieger, Bartlelin, Brux or Mullerworks etc. etc.