^^Well said^^
1/2 inch at 50 trouble. Imput appreciated !
- Thread starter Canadiankeeper
- Start date
^^Well said^^
One lot of CCI MiniMags will produce and the next will not.
My CZ455 American has been pillar bedded and prefers CCI MM Round Nose over Hollow Points.
3" groups for the HP's at 100 yards so it might be a Minute of Gopher at 50 yards.
Last Week with Lapua CenterX it shot a .53 c-c at 100 and was not fond of the other lot.
Today the good lot measured 1.31 and the other lot produced 1.01, 0.86 and 0.87
Try a number of different brands and when you find one lot that it likes but bricks or a case.
My CZ455 American has been pillar bedded and prefers CCI MM Round Nose over Hollow Points.
3" groups for the HP's at 100 yards so it might be a Minute of Gopher at 50 yards.
Last Week with Lapua CenterX it shot a .53 c-c at 100 and was not fond of the other lot.
Today the good lot measured 1.31 and the other lot produced 1.01, 0.86 and 0.87
Try a number of different brands and when you find one lot that it likes but bricks or a case.
Early on in the thread Diopter mentioned cheek pressure.
I've had some odd results lately, things like the bottom row of a target being shot very well, and the top row showing every shot high right, up to a half inch from where everything else had been going.
So, that's not ammunition, that's not the rifle, that's me. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the light sporter rifles are very particular about how they're held from shot to shot.
Some of you are saying "This isn't news, son" and you're right. I used to shoot heavier rifles when I competed, and they weren't shot from a bench, either. Flyers were attributed to poor shot execution, a wobbly hold, etc. The ammunition wasn't overly suspect, the rifle surely was more accurate than that, right? , and slight changes in grip would never cause that flyer.. It got blamed on the shooter.
Now I'm shooting from a solid bench, with a scope and decent ammo, and the bullets aren't going where they should every time. Shocking.
Like Grauhanen says, it's called a challenge for a reason.
I'm thinking I'm putting inconsistent pressure on a light rifle and it's telling me that via my results.
I just got a somewhat heavier rifle with a fixed barrel, plus a higher mag scope. We'll see if anything changes once it's broken in and I'm used to it.
I've had some odd results lately, things like the bottom row of a target being shot very well, and the top row showing every shot high right, up to a half inch from where everything else had been going.
So, that's not ammunition, that's not the rifle, that's me. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the light sporter rifles are very particular about how they're held from shot to shot.
Some of you are saying "This isn't news, son" and you're right. I used to shoot heavier rifles when I competed, and they weren't shot from a bench, either. Flyers were attributed to poor shot execution, a wobbly hold, etc. The ammunition wasn't overly suspect, the rifle surely was more accurate than that, right? , and slight changes in grip would never cause that flyer.. It got blamed on the shooter.
Now I'm shooting from a solid bench, with a scope and decent ammo, and the bullets aren't going where they should every time. Shocking.
Like Grauhanen says, it's called a challenge for a reason.
I'm thinking I'm putting inconsistent pressure on a light rifle and it's telling me that via my results.
I just got a somewhat heavier rifle with a fixed barrel, plus a higher mag scope. We'll see if anything changes once it's broken in and I'm used to it.
- Location
- West Quebec
^^^^^ Works well in my CZ as well
I've almost completed this challenge after about 10 attempts over the course of this summer. Over 500 rounds spent shrinking groups from 1.25" to 1" to .75 etc etc. I've observed better groups after learning how to regulate my breathing, pressure of the butt in my shoulder, cheekweld consistency and of course ammo. OP I don't know where you are however Cabelas has a great selection of Eley ammunition, I've had the best luck with match and tenex. Don't give up!
I definitely feel like it is the ammo.
I feel like I differ in opinion. I feel that the challenge is more for the ability to "know" your rifle. IE What It likes to shoot, barrel heat ect... Obviously with 22lr a quality rifle helps ALOT also. ( A little pay to play going on )
I feel that putting round on top of round at 50 yards with a bipod and rear bag is ridiculously easy. Even using a 3x9 optic. Let alone some of the 4x20's or 24 power optics I see sitting on top of the winners.
Will never give up! It is one of the more fun/stressful/exciting/frustrating things I do at the range. I have fallen in love with 22lr "trainer" shooting.
Shooting a lot of "competition" targets, such as know your limits and other various timed targets.
I know all of my other rifles are 1 moa or better, so grouping them is kind of boring. The crops are up so my personal range to blast out to 1000 is un available. My local range is farthest of 300M. Don't get me wrong blowing up pop cans is fun, but after one pack. Repetitive.
22lr gives me a cheap way to practice. From prone, bench precision and tactical "training". Too off hand, and unsupported shooting.
A shot of my last 3 purchases. 22LR on top (the one I'm trying to complete this with), 223 mid and a fun blaster 12 ga on bot.
Suffice to say the factors affecting rimfire accuracy are numerous. I'm going off the premise that the rifle is properly setup and the shooter is capable, so now we discuss the variables of the barrel and ammo. SK is plenty good to shoot under 1/2" all day out of a capable firearm at 50 yards. It's weakness will show up more at 100 yards with velocity spread. Some of the ammo tried should have produced a number of good groups in the mix of flier groups. If no to 1 or 2 sub 1/2" groups are shot no matter the ammo tried, we move on to the barrel.
Maybe I only speak for myself and my abilities here but I feel this is more of an equipment game than anything. You're on a solid bench rest at 50 yards, shoot on a calm day, have a great rifle and primo ammo, the groups make themselves you just squeeze the trigger. If it ain't happening the equipment is not up to task. If you shoot a split second after the guy beside you shot his muzzle braked .338 Lapua Magnum then sure, you shoved that one out to 3/4" grouping. I've seen some rifles do some wacky groupings from a dead steady rest, I've observed the cyclical pattern of nice groups then fliers. I can only attribute this to the equipment. Here is my Savage shooting Midas + it clearly "likes" the ammo, I'm doing my job but this 3/4" flier comes outta nowhere?!? It ain't the ammo, it ain't me, wind doesn't knock it that far down, the barrel just reached a tipping point with fouling. Other "fliers" are seen to the left, right, high and low but dispersion remained within 1/2". This is what we look for as the barrel breaks in. Frequency and severity of the fliers to reduce. I'm not sure they will ever stop occurring in a factory grade barrel.
Let's get this straight I'm not "blaming" the barrel just presenting the facts of the situation so we know what we're dealing with. It's a new factory grade barrel. It's rough inside. The leade likely has some minor burrs on it, my Annie 64 MSR did (nothing at all like those gross smears on my defective CZ 455) and they eventually wore away with shooting. It's at 300 round count, personally I feel most rifles of this class should have two bricks of cheap ammo shot through them before any accuracy testing is done.
Let's check out some borescope pics!
My Savage MKII, haven't cleaned it after the last session. The reamer marks are clear they go up the entire barrel. You can see the fouling pack into the marks then smear down the bore. Soft metals stick to each other easily, shot to shot the bore is in an ever changing state of fouling. We see best accuracy when fouling is gradual and consistent. Any extreme change causes a flier. It doesn't take much to upset a bullet. All production barrels are like this as they are reamed to final dimension. The custom barrel makers ream the bore undersize then hand lap to finished diameter to eliminate these marks. If there wasn't an obvious benefit to doing so, they would not waste the tremendous amount of time and effort performing this task.
Even Anschütz barrels display these reamer marks. They don't appear as severe as the Savage's, do they? There is evidence of some kind of finishing process performed with faint marks running parallel to the bore. The amount of fouling that can build up here is minimal, and so to is the "flier" dispersion. Still, no finishing is performed after the chambers are cut so even custom barrels need some "break in" on this area. It will be minimal as they take care in the operation and use tooling in excellent condition.
Seeing is believing
Suffice to say the factors affecting rimfire accuracy are numerous. I'm going off the premise that the rifle is properly setup and the shooter is capable, so now we discuss the variables of the barrel and ammo. SK is plenty good to shoot under 1/2" all day out of a capable firearm at 50 yards. It's weakness will show up more at 100 yards with velocity spread. Some of the ammo tried should have produced a number of good groups in the mix of flier groups. If no to 1 or 2 sub 1/2" groups are shot no matter the ammo tried, we move on to the barrel.
Maybe I only speak for myself and my abilities here but I feel this is more of an equipment game than anything. You're on a solid bench rest at 50 yards, shoot on a calm day, have a great rifle and primo ammo, the groups make themselves you just squeeze the trigger. If it ain't happening the equipment is not up to task. If you shoot a split second after the guy beside you shot his muzzle braked .338 Lapua Magnum then sure, you shoved that one out to 3/4" grouping. I've seen some rifles do some wacky groupings from a dead steady rest, I've observed the cyclical pattern of nice groups then fliers. I can only attribute this to the equipment. Here is my Savage shooting Midas + it clearly "likes" the ammo, I'm doing my job but this 3/4" flier comes outta nowhere?!? It ain't the ammo, it ain't me, wind doesn't knock it that far down, the barrel just reached a tipping point with fouling. Other "fliers" are seen to the left, right, high and low but dispersion remained within 1/2". This is what we look for as the barrel breaks in. Frequency and severity of the fliers to reduce. I'm not sure they will ever stop occurring in a factory grade barrel.
Let's get this straight I'm not "blaming" the barrel just presenting the facts of the situation so we know what we're dealing with. It's a new factory grade barrel. It's rough inside. The leade likely has some minor burrs on it, my Annie 64 MSR did (nothing at all like those gross smears on my defective CZ 455) and they eventually wore away with shooting. It's at 300 round count, personally I feel most rifles of this class should have two bricks of cheap ammo shot through them before any accuracy testing is done.
Let's check out some borescope pics!
Even Anschütz barrels display these reamer marks. They don't appear as severe as the Savage's, do they? There is evidence of some kind of finishing process performed with faint marks running parallel to the bore. The amount of fouling that can build up here is minimal, and so to is the "flier" dispersion. Still, no finishing is performed after the chambers are cut so even custom barrels need some "break in" on this area. It will be minimal as they take care in the operation and use tooling in excellent condition.
Seeing is believing
I echo that bolded statement
Mind you I'm on a bipod and rear bag. Layering round on top of round is still not something I would consider difficult at 50 yards.
All technical stuff aside ,if you're a competent shooter it comes down to equipment and a quality ammo that your rig likes .Of course you also need calm wind and good condition,s..I do my best with no distractions but have learned to shoot well with others beside me.You can't shoot good groups with a AR beside you with a brake. I started with a couple of savages and sk std plus .Moved up to couple of cz varmints and rifle match plus various boxes rows. Today I have 2 Anschutz a match 64 and a new MPR plus 3 different lots of center x,UM22, midas +.I use a sightron or a Vortex HST in 6-24.I use a rock br and a leather rabbit ear rear bag. I use to struggle to get under a half inch.Now I'm not happy when I get a .5 or a .6as my rifles are capable of much better. Like graunhan has said it's a challenge. But money and better equipment makes it much easier. My new MPR shoots so good I've only put about 200 rounds through it and shot a couple of challenge groups with it already. Bottom line is you will most likely struggle with the savage as I did. It's fun but soon becomes frustrating as you know it's not you but the rifle.
IMHO you can't simply say it's an equipment game. Reviewing the list there is a real mixed bag of Annie's, CZ's and 10/22's. Sure equipment plays a significant role and will make it easier, but you can't negate the person pulling the trigger. Consistency of breathing, cheek pressure, head position, finger placement, follow through etc. all have a role to play.
It's not my intention to foment argument, but if it were only an equipment issue, then everyone who owned good equipment would have no problems always shooting very well. The problem is that very few of us are as good at shooting as we like to think we are. Simply putting a good rifle into someone's hands does not make him a good shooter. The shooter with the deepest pockets is not necessarily the best shooter.
To be sure, a Savage barrel is not going to be free of machining inconsistencies. As you look closer and closer, no barrel will be free of them. But to insist from afar that the equipment is at fault and shooter error is not an issue is to make a leap of faith that experience and logic cannot sustain. Inconsistencies exist in all factory barrels, but the inconsistencies themselves are more consistent and produce more predictable results than the human factor.
The errant shots that many call fliers are usually not fliers in the strictest sense because they were the product of human error in hold, tension, torque, breathing, trigger control, wind reading (if applicable), among other factors rather than inconsistent ammunition or a sudden manifestation of issues arising from a less-than-custom-made barrel. The errant shots are errant because the human shooter is inconsistent much more often than the equipment. The equipment surely does not change from shot to shot, but the shooter himself can and very often does -- even if it is so imperceptible that the shooter can swear that he did exactly as he did before. The human factor is inescapable, as we are rarely the shooting machines of our imagination.
My intention is the same as yours no argument
Your analogy is absolutely the reason that it is called a challenge.To purchase a gun and go to the range shoot 100 200 or a brick or 2 bricks roll up your sleeves and shoot five five shot groups and then decide equipment flaws poor chambers tooling marks crowns,bedding triggers not the shooter must be the equipment shouldn't buy another gun without a personal inspection with a bore scope is really a stretch. A brick of ammo doesn't prove anything with the average sporter.30+ years of shooting will throw a wet blanket on that.The getting in the zone knowing the gun your capabilities and many other variables is just the tip of the iceberg.Those groups are not that easy.To say it will shoot that all day is only a statement.I don't own anything that will shoot it all day,but I have a couple of shooters that have shot 5 5 shot groups.
There have been successful challenges done off sand bags on the hood of a truck.Without match ammo,those shooters have discipline and shooting skills without spending a weeks wages on chasing the rabbit,and the target proves that.
This a cut and paste from another gun group the fellow makes a lot of sense he used a CZ as an example. Lots of stats.
To understand shooter reports and reviews on CZ rifle accuracy you have to understand normal distribution and the concept of standard deviation in three different ways.
First
CZ .22 LRs in general tend to be very accurate by .22 LR Sporter standards and they tend to be quite consistent.
That means that if you take 100 CZ 455 Varmint rifles at random off the production line and shoot them with the same lot of ammo, and collect data on the average group sizes, you'll get a representative distribution of the accuracy of CZ 455 Varmint rifles.
68 of them will have group sizes within +/- 1 standard deviation of the average, 13 of them will fall on the "good" side of that central distribution with groups sizes between 1 and 2 SD better than the mean, while 13 of them will be on the "bad" side of that central distribution with group sizes between1 and SD worse than averages. Finally, you'll have 3 of them on the "great" side of accuracy with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD better than the average, and 3 of them on the "awful" side of average with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD worse than average.
You'll also probably find that compared to, for example, 100 Savage rifles, the distribution in accuracy is narrower with all the rifles shooting groups closer to the average group size, and you'll probably find that average group size is smaller.
Second
Similarly, if you take one CZ 455 and shoot 100 five shot groups at 100 yards, you'll also find a normal distribution in group size. Let's say that the average group size is 1.0" and the SD is .25" That means:
3 groups will fall between .25" and .50"
13 groups will fall between .50" and .75"
68 groups will fall between .75" and 1.25";
13 groups will fall between 1.25" and 1.50"
3 groups will fall between 1.50" and 1.75"
Third
If you insist on a rifle demonstrating a level of accuracy at the 99% confidence level, then the above CZ 455 that shot the 100 groups is only a 1.75 MOA rifle.
If you are ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 95% confidence level then it's a 1.5 MOA rifle.
If you're ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 68% confidence level than it's a 1.25 MOA rifle.
If you're ok with the average accuracy then it's a 1 MOA rifle.
-----
All three are good things to understand as:
1. Sooner or later you'll find someone who shoots one or maybe even two of those .25 to .50" groups at 100 yards and claim their CZ 755 is a 1/2 MOA or even 1/4 MOA rifle. You need to understand why it probably isn't, even if he doesn't.
2. Even though CZ's tend to be pretty consistent, they are not all the same. The odds of getting a "good" versus "bad" CZ 455 follows the same laws of probability and in broad brush strokes, 68 out of 100 will shoot "average", 16 will shoot better than average and 16 will shoot worse than average.
3. CZ's on average are a) a lot more accurate than most sporters and b) the difference between a good and a bad CZ are a lot less than with most other rifles, and combined with a good average overall it means a bad CZ is still likely to shoot better than an average or above average .22 LR Sporter made by most other companies.
Your analogy is absolutely the reason that it is called a challenge.To purchase a gun and go to the range shoot 100 200 or a brick or 2 bricks roll up your sleeves and shoot five five shot groups and then decide equipment flaws poor chambers tooling marks crowns,bedding triggers not the shooter must be the equipment shouldn't buy another gun without a personal inspection with a bore scope is really a stretch. A brick of ammo doesn't prove anything with the average sporter.30+ years of shooting will throw a wet blanket on that.The getting in the zone knowing the gun your capabilities and many other variables is just the tip of the iceberg.Those groups are not that easy.To say it will shoot that all day is only a statement.I don't own anything that will shoot it all day,but I have a couple of shooters that have shot 5 5 shot groups.
There have been successful challenges done off sand bags on the hood of a truck.Without match ammo,those shooters have discipline and shooting skills without spending a weeks wages on chasing the rabbit,and the target proves that.
This a cut and paste from another gun group the fellow makes a lot of sense he used a CZ as an example. Lots of stats.
To understand shooter reports and reviews on CZ rifle accuracy you have to understand normal distribution and the concept of standard deviation in three different ways.
First
CZ .22 LRs in general tend to be very accurate by .22 LR Sporter standards and they tend to be quite consistent.
That means that if you take 100 CZ 455 Varmint rifles at random off the production line and shoot them with the same lot of ammo, and collect data on the average group sizes, you'll get a representative distribution of the accuracy of CZ 455 Varmint rifles.
68 of them will have group sizes within +/- 1 standard deviation of the average, 13 of them will fall on the "good" side of that central distribution with groups sizes between 1 and 2 SD better than the mean, while 13 of them will be on the "bad" side of that central distribution with group sizes between1 and SD worse than averages. Finally, you'll have 3 of them on the "great" side of accuracy with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD better than the average, and 3 of them on the "awful" side of average with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD worse than average.
You'll also probably find that compared to, for example, 100 Savage rifles, the distribution in accuracy is narrower with all the rifles shooting groups closer to the average group size, and you'll probably find that average group size is smaller.
Second
Similarly, if you take one CZ 455 and shoot 100 five shot groups at 100 yards, you'll also find a normal distribution in group size. Let's say that the average group size is 1.0" and the SD is .25" That means:
3 groups will fall between .25" and .50"
13 groups will fall between .50" and .75"
68 groups will fall between .75" and 1.25";
13 groups will fall between 1.25" and 1.50"
3 groups will fall between 1.50" and 1.75"
Third
If you insist on a rifle demonstrating a level of accuracy at the 99% confidence level, then the above CZ 455 that shot the 100 groups is only a 1.75 MOA rifle.
If you are ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 95% confidence level then it's a 1.5 MOA rifle.
If you're ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 68% confidence level than it's a 1.25 MOA rifle.
If you're ok with the average accuracy then it's a 1 MOA rifle.
-----
All three are good things to understand as:
1. Sooner or later you'll find someone who shoots one or maybe even two of those .25 to .50" groups at 100 yards and claim their CZ 755 is a 1/2 MOA or even 1/4 MOA rifle. You need to understand why it probably isn't, even if he doesn't.
2. Even though CZ's tend to be pretty consistent, they are not all the same. The odds of getting a "good" versus "bad" CZ 455 follows the same laws of probability and in broad brush strokes, 68 out of 100 will shoot "average", 16 will shoot better than average and 16 will shoot worse than average.
3. CZ's on average are a) a lot more accurate than most sporters and b) the difference between a good and a bad CZ are a lot less than with most other rifles, and combined with a good average overall it means a bad CZ is still likely to shoot better than an average or above average .22 LR Sporter made by most other companies.
Like I said, I'm going of the premise that the rifle was properly setup and the shooter was capable. Michael Schumacher couldn't win an F1 race in a Smart Car likewise you'd get smoked even with the best race car. Sure, some people suck at shooting, there, I said it.... was trying to be polite. Shooter skill aside there is still a major role that equipment quality plays in this game. Guys, these .22s aren't laser beams and there are hard limits to their accuracy capabilities no matter how good a shooter you are.
Respectfully no, the results produced by barrel imperfections are anything but predictable. When the imperfections are minor I'm sure you could be thinking things like "Did I pull that shot? Was there a gust of wind? Was that a weak/strong round, I'm only shooting SK Std+? Did I put too much cheek pressure?" Etc. I have not found these subtle shooter factors to be involved in observing gross shot error in the range of 3/4" - 1" at 50 yards. I've shot at the very moment of being blasted by a muzzle brake beside me, and instantly knew I yanked that shot waaay out. Guess what? The group remained under 0.8". That is an extreme example of shooter induced error and it was still lesser than many of the equipment problems I've experienced. Frankly, it is tough to shoot that poorly off a bench rest.
The rifles many of us are shooting are not $6000 custom turbo action benchrest builds capable of consistent 0.1" groups. A custom barreled CZ or Annie 64 is only going to give you an accuracy capability of 0.2"-0.3" at 50 yards. Better than 0.2" takes a whole lot more money and precision equipment. The rate of return for accuracy drops off steeply once we hit 0.2". Sure you're going to have Savages, CZ's, Annies, Winchesters, Remingtons and the lot that produce some nice groups for you, maybe even 5 in a row
but they are still going to randomly spit out some bad groups that aren't your fault!. The equipment may not change shot to shot, what I'm saying is that the bore condition is changing shot to shot. This is an unavoidable fact of combustion and metal on metal friction inside the barrel. The goal of the custom barrel is to reduce the rate of fouling build up as much as possible and cause it to be as consistent as possible in it's growth. From this we see accuracy as the bore condition is as similar as possible from one shot to the next.I'm amazed how quick people are to blame themselves for poor groupings, especially some of you who are shooting some great groups! The quality of rifles that most of us are shooting randomly spit out wacky shots that have nothing to do with your personal skills!
I've already said the factors affecting rimfire accuracy are numerous. This situation has an obvious and major contributing factor to the OP's accuracy issue, a brand new factory grade rifle. To eliminate this variable (which is a significant one) the OP needs to get the round count up to 1000, 100% clean the barrel, test some ammo of at least SK quality then get back to us with the results. There's not much more to discuss with the OP until this is done.
And what does CZ do with their barrels? They hydraulically lap them. Setup on a piston like machine to pump a lap through the barrel for a set number of cycles. Not equal to hand lapping but a heck of a lot better than doing nothing. The bore finish in them is pretty good. Why do this unless reducing the tool marks in the barrel helps accuracy? Their chambering practices however... a bad CZ like the one I got was absolutely shameful in it's performance. Cooey semi-autos can shoot better than that barrel, my Remington 597 shoots circles around it.
Be skeptical if you like, but my findings with a bunch of my rifles directly link bore fouling to poor accuracy. The severity of the imperfections that cause the fouling build up determine the accuracy and consistency of the rifle. When the fine line is crossed from imperfection to defect the rifle will just never perform no matter what's done to bedding, scope, trigger, ammo, shooter and rest setup etc. The barrel is the heart of the rifle for accuracy, everything else is a secondary consideration that can add up to an issue collectively but individually each item is relatively minor in it's accuracy impact. As long as you just don't simply suck at shooting
When the imperfections are minor I'm sure you could be thinking things like "Did I pull that shot? Was there a gust of wind? Was that a weak/strong round, I'm only shooting SK Std+? Did I put too much cheek pressure?" Etc. I have not found these subtle shooter factors to be involved in observing gross shot error in the range of 3/4" - 1" at 50 yards. I've shot at the very moment of being blasted by a muzzle brake beside me, and instantly knew I yanked that shot waaay out. Guess what? The group remained under 0.8". That is an extreme example of shooter induced error and it was still lesser than many of the equipment problems I've experienced. Frankly, it is tough to shoot that poorly off a bench rest.
I'm amazed how quick people are to blame themselves for poor groupings, especially some of you who are shooting some great groups! The quality of rifles that most of us are shooting randomly spit out wacky shots that have nothing to do with your personal skills!
Be skeptical if you like, but my findings with a bunch of my rifles directly link bore fouling to poor accuracy. The severity of the imperfections that cause the fouling build up determine the accuracy and consistency of the rifle. When the fine line is crossed from imperfection to defect the rifle will just never perform no matter what's done to bedding, scope, trigger, ammo, shooter and rest setup etc. The barrel is the heart of the rifle for accuracy, everything else is a secondary consideration that can add up to an issue collectively but individually each item is relatively minor in it's accuracy impact. As long as you just don't simply suck at shooting
This explanation seeks to eliminate the shooter from the equation, to reduce the human factor in shooting accuracy to irrelevancy. As such it does a disservice to shooters who understand the role they play in the results they achieve. It also may serve to alleviate disappointment by casting the blame for unsatisfactory results on equipment alone.
I offer as an example, warts and all, two sets of targets I shot this morning with rifles that can and do shoot well -- but they do not shoot themselves. These targets are not cherry-picked for either accuracy or inaccuracy, and certainly not as illustrations of equipment that is to blame. I shot 200 rounds of SK Standard Plus, no "warm up" shots were taken, and the scopes were not adjusted at any time. The rifles were not cleaned prior to shooting, with both having something in the range of a brick through them since their last cleaning. The first two targets are with a Walther KKM, the second with an Anschutz MS R.
These targets show quite clearly the results of the human factor. All shots were taken with the crosshairs on the same POA, the middle of the bulls eye. POI does not always match the POA. A number of factors help account for this, including grip and pressure on the rifle (which are two different things, independent of each other and can change quite imperceptibly but enough to make a big difference), position on the rest and position on the rear bag, trigger control, breathing, heartbeat, follow through, among others. Perhaps one of the most obvious ways in which some of these are seen is when shots are moved from one bull to another. This can be seen by POI that is different than on other bulls and it is a common challenge to all shooters.
Bulls eye #18 with the KKM is an excellent example of the human factor, where an otherwise pretty good group of four was ruined when I looked up just a wee bit too soon. Many bulls were good, with one (sometimes two) shots spoiling them. It was me, not the rifle or the barrel. (Incidentally, the barrel is not the only difference maker in Anschutz rifles, which is seen when comparing a 54 action sporter with a 64 action rifle, both of which often have barrels indistinguishable from each other. Here it's the action that makes a difference in the results.)
Today was not a particularly auspicious day for me at the range. But it was not atypical. Perhaps there are enough "wacky shots" to show that I don't shoot very well at all. But I understand that I play a greater role in the results I achieve than the equipment I use. To ignore, or worse, to dismiss the human factor in the results shooters obtain is to miss the bigger picture when it comes to trying to get the shooting results we desire. If shooting off a bench was simply the result of equipment alone, then the final determination could more easily be made by a comparison of financial records than actual shooting results. There is a reason even BR shooters go through the trouble of actually shooting in competitions, and that is because the human factor is very relevant, very important, and, ultimately what it's all about.
I can say that I do not shoot as well as I would like all the time, or even most of the time. Let anyone who shoots very well post typical targets shot with a rifle that is not out of reach for most shooters. Perhaps such targets can show that the human factor is unimportant or irrelevant. While we wait, let those shooters who despair of their results take some solace that they are not alone.
Rod B
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
We all have both good & bad days. Usually if I am having a bad day I know it by the time I have shot three or four targets. If I had more self discipline I would pack it in after those but usually I keep shooting & hope I improve. I usually don't.
That said a bad day at the range beats a good day at work.
That said a bad day at the range beats a good day at work.
Its not all human error,when I say equipment try shooting a challange group with bulk ammo.Ain't gonna happen,you need good ammo[equipment]Try shooting off a 2x4 and towel compared to a Rock BR type rest,again equipment.Same with shooting off a folding card table vs a real shooting bench.The list goes on and on.Yes I too blow plenty of shots but good equipment makes things much easier.
Well, if you feel you are the cause of the fliers, who am I to tell you different? My humble observation of those groupings is that you are a much better shooter than you give yourself credit for, and there are some funky things going on with your rifles. Obviously we have a disconnect on what has a greater effect on accuracy. Bringing them out at a round count of 500 with no cleaning introduces something that could be a significant factor regarding their consistency in accuracy. Clean them 100% every range trip and compile several sessions worth of data on how they perform from clean to fouled. How do ya know they are 100% clean too? You might think so but the bore scope shows a little bit of lead jammed into a corner requiring some JB bore paste to get it out
Relevant to the OP targets shot with my Annie 64 MSR when new and broken in. First we have 9 groups of SK Standard + and 10 groups of SK Rifle match, first group of Std + was to sight in on another paper. Round count 5-100 shown. I was surprised by the results from the almighty Anschütz as it was such an easy gun to shoot. Potential was seen and judgement was not to be passed until many more rounds had been shot.
Then we have same ammo round count about 800-900, 100% clean bore to start. First two groups of Std + just over 1/2" as the lube settles into the barrel. It then proceeds to shoot under 1/2" very nearly "all day". No heroic effort went into shooting these groups. I must be a "natural". *shrug*. Interesting is Rifle Match group 3 which went over 1/2". 3 and 2 shots into one hole, spread out from each other. Do you suggest that was shooter error? Whatever shift I may have made, wow, was it ever darn consistent between the shifting POI. To me, no I did nothing different the bore conditions just changed mid group.
Let's run the gamut of ammo shot through my Savage, starting with SK Std + no adjustments made to scope, POI had to settle down. I usually shoot Std + in the Savage from a clean bore so I don't have any data on how it does with a few more shots through the barrel before testing it. Results are typical. A number of great groups ruined by a random flier and not for one second do I feel I made that gross of a shooter error. The paper results just do not line up with how I felt the shooting went.
With Rifle Match it's settled down but still squirting out fliers.
On to Center-X now performance is pretty consistent and this is about all that can be expected out of the rifle. The last group of 0.118" was nice, bore conditions stayed consistent for the group.
Midas + results shown on a previous post.
X-act put together a very consistent target, but tighter groups were shot with "lesser" ammo. I've seen more consistency in this rifle above 100 round count from clean, but best groups are usually shot well under this.
A more detailed assessment would involve shooting 250 rounds of a single ammo type, cleaning and repeating with each of the 5 ammo types used here. This would observe performance as the rifle goes from clean to fouled, as each ammo I've shown was not shot with the same bore condition.
To the OP if you can replicate my target results with your Savage, you're doing as well as you can with the rifle, and 5 in a row WILL happen somewhere in one of those targets if you keep at it and it won't take X-act or any crazy expensive ammo.
Grauhanen, if you wanna meet up for a range day sometime we could shoot each others rifles and settle the "shooter ability" debate once and for all! It goes one of two ways, we replicate each others results and know we're both skilled shooters and that's just the limit of our firearms. Or, I do better than you with your rifles and you do worse than me with mine and we know you're right when you say you're not the best shooter
I may start documenting what I'm going through with my .270 regarding fouling and accuracy because it's way more definitive than this rimfire stuff. I've been spinning my wheels for two years trying to beat the 3/4" @ 100 hunter rifle challenge with it and now I know why it's not happening. The bore is a fouler and cannot hold accuracy beyond 10 shots. 15 scoring shots are needed for that challenge. I could do it over multiple range trips by shooting a couple foulers from a clean bore then shooting a single scoring group. Take the target down, clean the rifle up at home and repeat for the next range trip until challenge complete. I'm giving it one last chance at "break in" now that I have the borescope to verify copper removal. From a single shot so much fouling is deposited that it takes nearly 2 hours to remove it all, and I resort to JB bore paste to scrub it out. Think about match barrels that after 40 shots only need a few wet patches of Butches Bore shine to clean up.... yep... there's my problem. As a hunting rifle, with this knowledge it is just fine for purpose as I can verify clean, shoot the sighters/foulers then know the couple shots I need at an animal will hit the mark. This rifle is plenty capable of sub 1/2" at 100 performance but buddy, the fouling rate quickly destroys the accuracy potential. I am putting together finely crafted handloads for it too btw.
