Bump did this go ahead seemed like a good idea
Printable View
Bump did this go ahead seemed like a good idea
Yeah we should make this happen
This is an ongoing challenge, I don't think it was meant to be an event where everyone shows up with their 500 dollar gun and see what wins. If you acquired a 500 dollar gun and want to give this a go, then just go do it and post your results.
I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted.
It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle.
So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically.
This has been a very worthy exercise.
First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m
Care to explain that one @Ultimitsu ?
Why would a rifle shoot twice as well at range, while using reticle hold? The reticle is a plain reticle on 9 power.
That means that holding over on a plain reticle has better accuracy and precision than my range groups holding on the dot.
I know the answer.
This is a fun challenge. I have a slick rifle in the cupboard, all I need is a reliable $50 scope and all it has to do is hold a zero.
Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk
Funny you say that my MOA groups on my 22 250 seem to get better at 200m than 100m, I've just put it down to outlier data from my shooting as technically seems impossible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
The suspense is killing me ! Please explain ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Aim small miss small
Below is a bit of Tussock theorizing. Please keep nickers twist free if you don't agree;)
Trigger pull and follow through @R93. I have two for this rifle. One when I am shooting for a group at 100m and one when I am shooting with hold over and at greater ranges.
When I add the element of holding over my trigger pull becomes sub-conscious. I shoot off a backpack like on a field rest. Lock time and follow through are a big deal when shooting from field rests because you have a lot more opportunity to move the rifle between the trigger breaking and the projectile departing the end of the barrel. The trigger breaks, firing pin moves forward and hits firing pin, primer goes, powder goes, projectile departs barrel. It is not instant.
When you have a rifle set up rock solid on a bench, it moves in a very controlled way. You could have a very long slow lock time and still shoot well because there is no movement in the rifle as the above sequence takes place.
You will note some characters on this forum shoot bug holes off a backpack in a paddock. Not many, but it can be done. More might do it if there was a reason to try.
When you shoot in the field, it is less about that flawless trigger break on a stable rifle, and more about synchronizing the trigger break with the moment you bring your body to absolute stillness, while the cross hairs are where you want them.
The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out.
This is why as an exercise, I think you should shoot at a single point, one shot, one target. To get a group equivalent measure the difference between the point of impact and the point of aim. I'm trying to factor this tension build effect out of my shooting.
What Friwi said is important. I have been doing this in 50 round sessions and I come back to 100m from time to time. Going back to 100m feels like driving in a car at 100ks an hour right after you have been going 200ks. 100m suddenly seems very close.
I'm very interested in lock time now. I think the ammo I am using has slow primers or the rifle has long lock time. As I get 3-4 missfires a box there is something up. I increasingly felt with the rifle every time I felt a really sweet shot, it went where I wanted and every flier I pulled. The better it felt, the closer to the point of impact. This is not how it feels with an inherently inaccurate rifle. It feels like things are random. With this Sauer it feels like it is very easy to shoot 1" and very hard, but possible, to do better.
If my theory is correct, then once I have churned through the next 150 rounds currently sitting in my range bag, I should be able to synchronize my trigger break, reticle hold and moment of stillness and tighten my groups up significantly.
The accuracy of the reticle hold is brain magic usually reserved for open sights. Your brain is wired for projectile weapons and has an inbuilt ballistics calculator. Scopes etc get in the way to a degree. I'm not sure if my ability to visualize a point on the cross hairs in precisely the right spot it common, as I spent a few years of my life looking down a microscope measuring things with a reticle. I assume anyone can do it.
The hold over off a plain reticle actually has about ten fold increase in accuracy and precision over how the rifle groups. Your brain clearly has a nack for this. It is basically just image retention.
Well thank the lord Tussock : I thought u were going to roll out the "bullets go to sleep" theory !
Some do :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LRP
So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?
I could have summarised the whole thing with "I shoot badly when I can see the group forming with this rifle".Quote:
Originally Posted by LRP
You have it a little backward. Why do I care about separating variables? This is the great conceit of science. You isolate variables in order to talk about them. There is no instruction manual and no way of predicting what will happen when you bring those variables back together. That is the domain of math.Quote:
Originally Posted by LRP
There is no point in creating a fair test if it is an irrelevant test.
I would put it simply. When you have the machine rest in the wind tunnel, how do you get the wind tunnel up the hill and line it up with the deer?
If you take away relevant variables, then you are just wasting your time.
How many hunting rifles shoot 1/5" MOA groups off a benchrest, but throw a first round flier from a cold barrel? How many shoot 4" to the left (for example) when cold? Heaps of them. Your half MOA is not a relevant variable to hunting. The first shot out of a cold barrel is.
There is no point isolating relevant variables and the exercise to find relevant variables is different. Without going through that process you are making a ton of assumptions, and assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.
The point of this entire exercise from the get go is to start a discussion about shooting in terms of marksmanship, taking in the human element.
Is there any way a machine rest could demonstrate what happens when a human fires a rifle? How could a machine rest in a tunnel demonstrate the mental aspects of marksmanship?
Setting up heavy rigs with gadgets and computers and isolating every variable is fun, but I would hold my manhood cheap if it was all I could do.
[QUOTE=Tussock;889149]
The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out.
Bit like when shooting DTL, target 25 and your on a possible? I know that feeling.