600 yard moa guarantee ???

Having have made a few pathetic attempts at long-range shooting myself, I would respectfully suggest that; consistently shooting MOA at 600 yards, with any gun, any ammo, is only for a very very Small percentage of shooters. Sadly, I am not one of them!

At the range and on the bench, where it counts, only once in a blue moon you see people who shoot like that consistently. However, when it comes to websites, it would appear that 9 out of 10 commentators are doing that kind of shooting regularly.
 
Too True!

Home3 said:
Having have made a few pathetic attempts at long-range shooting myself, I would respectfully suggest that; consistently shooting MOA at 600 yards, with any gun, any ammo, is only for a very very Small percentage of shooters. Sadly, I am not one of them!

At the range and on the bench, where it counts, only once in a blue moon you see people who shoot like that consistently. However, when it comes to websites, it would appear that 9 out of 10 commentators are doing that kind of shooting regularly.
Click to expand...

Honestly, All my guns may shoot sub-MOA....I'll wouldn't be able to prove it, personally!
 
Home3 said:
Having have made a few pathetic attempts at long-range shooting myself, I would respectfully suggest that; consistently shooting MOA at 600 yards, with any gun, any ammo, is only for a very very Small percentage of shooters. Sadly, I am not one of them!

At the range and on the bench, where it counts, only once in a blue moon you see people who shoot like that consistently. However, when it comes to websites, it would appear that 9 out of 10 commentators are doing that kind of shooting regularly.
Click to expand...

If you go to a full bore match, you will see that kind of shooting is quite common, maybe not at a local range , but i can asure you at our rannge we have many shooters that can do that from the bench with their rifles, and the bench is where this stuff is talked about.
Slings 'n' irons is a different story, mind you, but there are still some that can do it.
Cat
 
Catt is absolutely right, and it is one of the fundamental problems with the continuum of expectation in this forum. There are several shooters on this board that I know personally and/or have shot with in long distance competition, (CyaN1de, Shockman, Scout, Inspector, Kodiak to the 15th power, 02fish, donP, Leeper, Machinist, Wapitewhacker, Gunsmoke, Banished, Liberty (I know of him but have not shot with him), flint1, Kevan, Prairieguy, Ed Begg, Marksman, Cooter1, Bingo001, Lyle1, Terry Perkins, Bob Raymond, Barry Price, Bruce Condie. Add to that, shooters of impeccable credentials that I have not personally shot with, but whose respect is international: Rpollock, Claven1. There are others, and I appologize for missing you. I could use your names, but I'm not sure how you feel about that. ) and scores more that avoid this site like the plague, that are absolutely capable of shooting the the absolute tolerances of their rifles and ammo.

These guys are all experts at long range precision shooting, and many have won or placed in prestigeous national and international competitions. There are guys that DO this and there are guys the TALK about this.

That is not to trample on anyone's ambitions or intentions, but there are people on here whose advice is worth its weight in gold medals and you can learn a great deal from what they have to say.
 
Home3 said:
I would respectfully suggest that; consistently shooting MOA at 600 yards, with any gun, any ammo, is only for a very very Small percentage of shooters.
Click to expand...

big difference between a modern Factory Tikka, Savage or Rem and quality match ammo or better yet handloads vs ANY rifle say a rusty bore, WWI special and surplus ball ammo.

Given the right rests and rifle, I would say MOST shooters can hit a 2" circle at 200yds if the winds are not interfering too much.

I have seen totally green shooters shoot better with a BR rig and some coaching.

There are many shooters here that are in Ont that might be able to lend a hand. Maybe the equipment needs some tweaking but if you know how to shoot well AND the rifle will do the job, then its just adjusting for the winds.

It is very possible.

I had the plesure of watching a shooter go 10 or 11 out of 12 clay pigeons at 800yds in some gusty winds using a tactical 308 off a bipod. That's 1/2 min.

And watch 15 V's show up at 300m under very nice conditions - that's under 0.4moa.

Winds are the great leveler and I know precious few shooters that can shoot MOA in a gale on a match day but many come awfully close.

Jerry
 
DrawBlood said:
I would disagree. One-shot groups have absolutely no statistical value, but three-shot groups do when ammo is limited, which it usually is on my end.
Click to expand...
A three shot group does not give much of a base line, except to show that three shots went in the same general spot.
Accuracy is generally based on many more rounds than that.
As well, I no of no shooting competitions that run a three shot string, for group or score 5 10 are the norm.
I can tell you that when testing for accuracy many shooters go for ten ,ten shot groups to get an idea of what their rifle, will do.
Cat
 
I am so glad Drawblood posted. It adds that perfect accent to what I was trying to convey in post #24.

Three shot groups tell you that you should try a ten shot group, nothing more. If a group sucks in three shots, it sucks. Plain and simple. If it holds together, it should be investigated by trying more shots and at longer distance. I look for solid trends. Such as...

laddertest.jpg


Here you can see a definite trend in group size. This was confirmed with a 10 shot 300M group... and a first place finish at the "Running of the V-Bulls Match" in October.
 
FrankCJ7 said:
3 shot groups have absolutly no statistical value (significance).
Click to expand...

For peak accuracy, if the first three don't go through the same hole, will slinging another 7 help?

My testing starts with 2 shots per load. If they are way apart, move on. If they are into the 1/4 min or less range, I go back and retest in larger sample size.

I quickly narrow down where the accuracy nodes are saving time, money and most importanly, bore life. See my Tech section on my website.

Eventually, I find the areas of best accuracy and shoot groups equal to the course of fire I will compete with.

for F class, that is up to 22rds - 1/2 min accuracy at 500m.

Test as you will use the rig.

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
For peak accuracy, if the first three don't go through the same hole, will slinging another 7 help?

Jerry
Click to expand...

Yes, sample size increases confidence level over a given handload. You may just be passing out on a good load, just because you shot the 2 rounds which have the lowest probability of occurence for a given cartridge configuration. Furthemore, extreme spread is the least significant measure of dispersion & accuracy because it is based on the group's outlyers (for any given sample size). Taking a 3 shots extreme spread resumes in a lower than 50% probability of success in determining if that particular load is good or not. With 3 shot strings, it's about the same probability of succes with any statistical methods of measuring avaible (mean radius, figure of merit and so on).

With extreme spread, slinging 7 more shots is going to increase your probability of success in determing the most accurate load to around 67%. Looks good but not best. Take measurements by calculating radial standard deviation (RSD) and you get to nearly 75% confident of having the right output on paper/target with 10 rounds vs what your handload will perform in real life. To get that with extreme spread you need at least 25 rounds!!! Take these 25 rounds with RSD and boom, nearly 90% in confidence level!!!

What would you rather do, multiple small sample sized extreme spreads or a greater sample size and a more appropriate statistical method than extreme spread? In the end, which one is more cost effective and will give you the most out of your trigger time?
 
Not to be rude (but unfortunately, it will come across that way), shoot more accurate rifles.

I compete in F class and with the gear I use, I EXPECT the bullets to go into one hole. If they don't in the first couple of shots, I move on. See Obtunded posts above.

I reject loads that many shooters will pin on a wall - again, not trying to be show of but that is just a byproduct of how competitive this sport is.

And compared to SR BR rigs, my groups would be mediocre.

The MATH that you suggest has validity BUT the more rds a shooter fires, the more ambient conditions AND the shooter abilities are reflected in the target. Shooting is far from a controlled experiment.

A gust of 1MPH at 200yds will push your bullet how far? When you are looking for 1 hole, 1/8" matters so unless you have total control over what the air is doing, the longer you shoot, the higher the chances the air has changed.

Then there is the issue of concentration and consistency. We train hard to keep them in the V bull over the course of fire which can be as much as 22 gruelling rds. MANY shooter neither have the interest or ability to stay focused for 10rds. so the longer a shooter is shooting, the higher the probability shooter induced error increases.

Add in the cumulative recoil and you have the potential of a flinch or the so called "pulled shot" - That would be a 4 in F class speak and that really sucks.

Then there are various other mechanical issues that can affect the performance of the data.

We are testing the rifle and load NOT the shooter, right?

So my testing regime involves shooting MULTIPLE low rd groups over the course of a few range sessions. Repeatability is what I am after. With accurate rifles that CAN shoot them all into one hole, repeating that performance is what builds confidence for me.

However, proof of concept is always needed and that means testing the load to match conditions. Yes, the final testing will be 17rds at distance. That is how many rds I will shoot in a match, that is how many I shoot to confirm my final load AND rifle.

Then I will include affects of fouling and anything else I can experience in a match. The gun and load is fully vetted, makes me feel confident, and then the challenge is besting Mother Nature.

I don't fixate on a group on the 0's because that will not be the average but they sure are nice to get.

Remember that many high performance chamberings burn out a pipe in short order. Most F Open rigs have a peak barrel life UNDER 1000rds. Boomers are used up in as little as 600 to 700rds. A big match can be over 200rds.

How many 10rds test groups would you need to find your load? What barrel life will that leave you? With a known chambering, I want a viable load in 40rds and that includes a proper work up from a starting load AND reconfirming the best loads.

Otherwise, there is something wrong with the barrel.

My test procedure is on my website. It has worked for me and I continue to use it. I find reliable data as quickly as possible and it has proven itself on paper in competition.

There are so many methods to suit any shooters whim. As long as the shooter is happy, its all good.

I am presently playing with a Ruger mini 14 and DO use larger number of shots per group BECAUSE there is so much variability in the rifle -ie amount of mechanical dispersion is WAYYYYY higher then my F class rigs. So I feel 5rds is NECESSARY to get any semblance of what a load can do.

I use the best method I feel represents the system I am testing.

Jerry
 
I don't find your comment rude and neither do I think your method is wrong, I just want to emphasize on the fact that you can get more info out of your ammo with sometimes less testing using other statistical methods methods than E.S. I'm not telling E.S. is no good, mainly because competitive events use that as well as the ammunition manufacturing industry. I do not shoot F-class or any shooting competition for the record, but I sure enjoy practicing target shooting on a bench and prone with a bipod. I don't own (yet) a custom high end rifle but I do work with a lot of fancy ones at the office...


One thing I saw at the range (and which is very common) was someone claiming he found the ultimate recipe for half a minute of accuracy with his rifle, based on multiple targets of 3 shot groups. Looking at patterns from different targets, first thing that I noticed was shift in mean point of impact vs point of aim. Even though every groups were really small, superimposing them showed that in fact, dispersion was more like 1 to 1.25 MOA (on a 200 yrds range with no wind). I asked him if he would accept to fire 9 or more consecutive rounds on a single target which he gladly accepted. His final group was around 1.25, not the claimed 1/2 minute of angle. And such claims are seen over and over... especially on the Internet. That might be why one reason I seem to be allergic to small sample size groups.


Here's another one, I work for a defense contractor manufacturing small arms amunition as well as large caliber. I work mainly with small and medium caliber ammunition. what I found is that statistics are everything for my work, interpretation of data is useless if the approach is not accurate:

Once at work, I did some preliminary tests with 3 times 5 shot groups fired in 3 different barrels at a short distance (100m). At first, groups looked really average and not impressive at all with variation from barrel to barrel. After a discussion with our statistical department, I was asked to try out a new test of the same load with 10 rounds per group and at a distance of 300m. I was shocked to see that, the same rounds that performed average at 100m (5 shot groups), were actually extremely good at 300m, just a little over what I expected, still really satisfying. If I did'nt looked at it from a statistical point of view, I would probably done more preliminary tests with smaller sample size and get a less accurate judgement on the quality of the rounds fired through that test. In that case, the human factor was not involved since the barrels were installed on a machine rest (God I wish I had one of them a home or the range).

Here is book I found out to be quite usefull for my work and now for my pass-time : Statistical Measures of Accuracy for Riflemen and Missile Engineers by Frank E. Grubbs. I also found old copies of Precision shooting that put different statistical methods for group analysis to the test vs E.S.

And for the subject of this thread, if someone is really interested in knowing what is involved in determining/characterizing the accuracy of a given rifle model (implies full production rifle) , I would suggest taking a look at specification MIL-R-71126 which was the US military specification for the choice/acquisition of the 7.62mm Rifle M24. It can easely be found on the internet (wikipedia). Most interesting info is on section 3.15.7 ''targeting accuracy'' and 3.15.4 ''endurence''. Method used for targeting accuracy is explaned in section 4.6.17. I know its not a custom competition rifle but this is more representative of what you would see from a fireams manufacturer.

Frank
 
Last edited:
The point of POI vs POA is a wonderful one and one I really pay attention to. Unless the scope is pooched or you have some serious bench form problems, the groups WILL be in the same location (of course, no affect by wind)

Yes, I overlay targets :)

Consistency and repeatability is what an accurate rifle is all about. Change in POI is deadly for any competitive shooting. I do test for this by shooting groups equal to my match needs but the small groups are the initial testing to locate a load WORTH high volume testing.

Our barrels simply do not last long enough to do 10rds groups in all level of work up. And with equipment that has the potential to shoot 1/2 to 1" at 300m, there is no need to worry about loads shooting much larger groups.

I have stopped worrying about ES and other number crunching when I discovered the error in the clocks in a generic chronie is higher then values I am trying to measure. I now just use it to make sure I am not about to discover ENTROPY.

I just let the targets at 200 and 300yds tell the tale. If the groups are nice and flat, the load is working. In a good shooting rifle, I can see 1/4 min windage/group size with near zero vertical. These loads shoot just as flat as far as I have elevation in my scope which is typically a very long ways...

Will have to check out the reference....Thanks,

Jerry

PS, I also doubt that any factory ammo maker would be as insanely attentive to load details as competition shooters are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom