On these forums one frequently reads from from forum participants as to how their average rifle shoots better than MOA or the 1/2" MOA. I have met up with some folks and friends at different ranges and more often than not, their forum facts do not amount to the reality of their actual shooting.
Kind of reminds me of the old "fish tales". I guess my question is why is there this seeming propensity to exaggerate groupings? Particularly to new people to the sport?
Last week I met up with one guy at the range whom wrote on another forum that his new Ruger M77 was shooting 1/2" MOA cloverleafs. Yet at the range, his groupings were larger than my 1.5" MOA - and he was still developing loads.
Musta been the light wind we were experiencing. Not a hill to die on, but why the need to exaggerate, why not tell it like it really is?
Kind of reminds me of the old "fish tales". I guess my question is why is there this seeming propensity to exaggerate groupings? Particularly to new people to the sport?
Last week I met up with one guy at the range whom wrote on another forum that his new Ruger M77 was shooting 1/2" MOA cloverleafs. Yet at the range, his groupings were larger than my 1.5" MOA - and he was still developing loads.
Musta been the light wind we were experiencing. Not a hill to die on, but why the need to exaggerate, why not tell it like it really is?