please delete.

[grauhanen]

A bit of luck helps. A few years ago when I was beginning to learn to shoot, I shot these at 57 yards (the 50 yard distance at my range). I don't think I really appreciated the luck involved with the five shot groups, and I haven't seen very many like them since. The distortion comes from having the camera too close.




These flies were less lucky than I was -- especially the one that came out on a warm October day only to make the mistake of landing on my target.




What was I shooting? Here's something that can be used to shoot a squirrel from a mile.

 

[Rod B]

Damn fine shooting Glen.

 

[holzmeister]

Took the Anschutz 1710 out a week or so ago

5 shots @ 50m

https://youtu.be/E6JVgir8j4c

 

[RabidM4U5]

Show for the world to see two or three target sheets shot the same day with the same rifle that have ten or fifteen groups of five shots each that measure under half-an-inch. That should be enough of a "real challenge".

I forgot your posted this... Called, and answered. Target 1 = 24 groups in a row <1/2", target 2 = 18 groups, target 3 = 20 groups... and you have nary a comment.... disappointing. I will take your silence as both an apology and congratulations. It does take a big man to admit when they are wrong.

 

[grauhanen]

Show for the world to see two or three target sheets shot the same day with the same rifle that have ten or fifteen groups of five shots each that measure under half-an-inch. That should be enough of a "real challenge".

These words in post #10 were in reply to the OP, alberta guy. I had no one else in mind when I wrote them.

I forgot your posted this... Called, and answered. Target 1 = 24 groups in a row <1/2", target 2 = 18 groups, target 3 = 20 groups... and you have nary a comment.... disappointing. I will take your silence as both an apology and congratulations. It does take a big man to admit when they are wrong.

I'll apologize first for not being aware that you think I owed you a comment on the targets you posted in this thread in post #56 above. Here are those targets:

It was only 20 not good enough for alberta guy, methinks. But, here's what I couldn't post in the challenge thread, the results of my tuner testing. The row at setting 268 was a ###y run of all 0.2's or better and would have made for a fine challenge post on it's own, but because there are other groups on the page over 1/2".... DQ'd! Went through a bad zone on the tuner there, but after that the next 24 groups in a row were under 1/2" This is especially notable given that I was shooting many different tuner settings, I regret not taking better notes of the settings. The other target has 18 in a row, and a few more squirrely groups, going lower on the tuner didn't seem to be getting me anywhere by the end of the Center-X run. Three ammo's, a bunch of tuner settings, and only 2 groups over 1/2" at bad settings. Then you can go see the single ammo, single tuner setting page in the 1/2" challenge thread for 20 in a row. I think the gun was too fouled for best accuracy at this point, it really started kicking out fliers on the last two rows. 70 out of 74 groups shot under 1/2" while playing with the tuner and ammo. Will that do, alberta guy?

Congratulations. Well done. You have groups in the teens to the sixes. I had no idea that these targets deserved my special attention, but I'm pleased to be able to say for all to see that you did well.

In an entirely different thread, on January 21, 2018, in post #1324, Rabid posted other targets which show even better results. That different thread can be found here https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...ards-meters-all-day!-Really-Prove-it!/page133

Boy, this thread sure has gotten slow after grauhanen got snowed out of his range for the season Do y'all remember this jovial fellow?





I got my tuner back from being bored out for my barrel just after Christmas, and today was decent enough to go out and test it, 3C calm winds but foggy. Got my ammo order last week with more Lapua Polar Biathlon, some SK Biathlon Sport, SK Rifle Match, SK Standard Plus, and a couple tins of SK Magazine (great "bulk" ammo ). I used the Purdy PRX to set the tuner for the 7th harmonic, being setting 273 on my Harrell's tuner with a heavy weight ring attached. First couple targets I explored above and below the calculated setting, since it is just a starting point and one cannot expect to be in tune at the calculated setting, but it should get you in the zone + or - 30 clicks in either direction. After shooting 275 rounds I settled on setting 268 and proceeded to thoroughly vet this setting. I was not disappointed.

Rifle: CZ 455, Custom Lilja 3-groove straight 0.850" 24" barrel, Boyd's Pro-Varmint stock, Fly Trigger
Scope: Leupold Competition 45x, EGW 0 MOA rail, Burris Signature High rings
Ammo: SK Biathlon Sport
Caldwell Rock front rest, medium front bag, Caldwell rear bag
Groups: 0.293", 0.349", 0.278", 0.186", 0.349", 0.322", 0.338", 0.312", 0.395", 0.271", 0.205", 0.254", 0.376", 0.394", 0.395", 0.269", 0.291", 0.353", 0.384", 0.307"
20 group average = 0.316"

Yeah, I'd say it shoots 1/2" all day.







The inside of the red circle is 0.480" for reference



Well, I didn't get the 25 groups demanded by alberta guy, but it's pretty obvious after 20 groups that there ain't no "getting lucky" on this target. Come spring once the temps are above 10C, and North Sylva gets more RWS R-50 in stock, I have ambitions of getting this rifle into the 1/4" club. This wasn't bad for cold weather shooting with mid-low grade training ammo, but I'm sure I can get it doing better. I'm not even sure it's properly tuned yet, maybe it'd be better at a different setting, or perhaps the 9th harmonic instead of the 7th I used? More weight, less weight? So many variables to test, but the rifle definitely would not have done this without the tuner, no way, no how.

I responded to this post as well as one by another shooter in the same thread. This is what I said about Rabid's shooting a short time later in post #1332 on Jan. 21, 2018

Nice shooting, gentlemen.

It would appear that my applause for Rabid's shooting was insufficient. Let me remedy that here. That was very, very nice shooting, Rabid (and Powderfinger61, in case you might feel left out, although I don't think you do). In addition, I congratulate here shooter chrisward3, who also posted in the original "1/2 in challenge" thread and successfully met the challenge (and I know you may not feel left out, either). Well done, chrisward3.

Rabid, I don't know why you felt it was necessary to seek my approval, congratulations or apology. I hope you can see that when you posted your very good target in the other thread I offered my commendation. Perhaps it was insufficiently effusive for you. If you need more fulsome praise, get a wife.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

Im just sad mr alberta has yet to come back to this thread lol

Even though he was online yesterday lol!

 

[Cameron SS]

This is going to be my last post on this topic. I can see i am hurting peoples feeling on this. Yes you people have skills and have shot five, five round groups the averages under a 1/2". To pass the challenge. I have done it too with my savage. But I just want you to prove you can do it all day long with your chosen gun an ammo. Not once a summer when you get lucky like i did and many else have. Like I said I got lucky for those five groups but I have no been able to do it since. I have been real real close but not succsesfull. That is why I do not put my pictures on the internet. Best group 25 shot 5 group challenge. Yah, under 1/2" for sure. Everyday shooting... most likely not going to happen for me again any time soon.

Classic. I posted something insulting. People got insulted and called me out on my nonsense, so I am not going to post again...

I accept your apology bro.

"The test is not a good test, because passing it doesn't guarantee that your gun can actually do what the thread claims it should, but I haven't done it and my gun can't do it, so clearly something is wrong with the test.

Your 25 groups on paper with only 5 that are good enough is exactly what the test is meant to weed out. There is a reason why you have to show a target with only the five perfect groups and nothing else, and it is exactly for the reasons you are talking about. Its the same reason why all the groups have be on the same sheet: so that a person can't just submit the first five groups where they did get lucky.

I assure you that anyone with their name on that wall can reproduce the necessary target again with the same gun/ammo without much difficulty. It took me more than 15 attempts to figure it out. But I guarantee you now that i have, I could go produce a good target on any day above 0 degrees celsius with steady wind.

To require 25 x 5 shot groups instead of 5x5 probably wouldn't weed out very many of the people whose names are on that wall, other than to present a challenge that is more an exercise in available time and money vs skill and good enough equipment. Its supposed to be fun after all.

In summary what you are suggesting would be painful, cruel, boring and unnecessary. And since you have passed neither your own challenge nor the one that many others have, it also comes off as just spiteful. Just take your ball and go home.

 

[RabidM4U5]

To require 25 x 5 shot groups instead of 5x5 probably wouldn't weed out very many of the people whose names are on that wall, other than to present a challenge that is more an exercise in available time and money vs skill and good enough equipment. Its supposed to be fun after all.

Actually, I think it would eliminate the vast majority of them. Plenty of rifles can do 5 in a row here and there, fewer still can do 10 in a row with any regularity, and while I haven't technically done 25 in a row yet, I did get to 24 during tuner testing with my CZ custom and I'm sure if I continued to shoot after 20 in a row at tuner setting 268 I would have done 25, but this is the only rifle I've ever had capable of such consistency. Otherwise, I've shot exactly 3 targets with 10 in a row to date, and nothing better. I've shot countless 5x5 targets, but I feel less challenged in doing so as a shooter than I do as a gunsmith to get my rifle to perform at such a level. Never mind the 25x5, try going for 10 in a row and see how you fare at it, I'll bet you get many 8/10 or 9/10 attempts, but 10/10's will be rare until you put some dedicated focus into ammo testing or use of a tuner on your rifle.

It would appear that my applause for Rabid's shooting was insufficient. Let me remedy that here. That was very, very nice shooting, Rabid

Thank you for the recognition, however, this was not meant to be a demonstration of my shooting prowess, but an illustration of the effects of using a tuner on a rifle. I do not seek anyone's approval for my shooting, I know where I am at, I know where I'd like to be, and I know what I need to do to get there.

I had no idea that these targets deserved my special attention

You called for 2-3 targets shot on the same day with same rifle, ammo etc... with 10-15 groups under 1/2". I delivered with targets in excess of 15 groups under 1/2" each, I'm sorry I didn't recognize this challenge was for the OP exclusively, it sounded like an open invite, one which you likely thought would not be achieved. It should have caught your attention, especially since my targets were not even shot in attempt to defeat any challenge issued on this forum, but exclusively for tuner testing. If you were aware of my lamentations about inconsistency with my custom CZ absent the tuner, then observation of these targets should have caused you to recognize "Oh yes, use of the tuner has significantly improved the consistency of Rabid's rifle". It should be no surprise that some groupings were not as impressive whilst I was testing numerous tuner settings, as well as how the groups tightened up appreciably at a good setting. Also, it was all done with $8/box SK training ammo in cold weather, you can expect better results when I use $18/box Lapua Polar Biathlon and in the warmer weather with other match ammo offerings. I've noted that there is still much to test with regards to tuner settings and weight rings on the tuner, but these targets that were posted document all groups shot during my first session with the tuner on the rifle (minus the first 5 shots for sight in). No cherry picking, complete transparency.

At any rate, I don't wish to draw you into any sort of argument, hence why I have not responded until now, but I would just like for you to recognize, despite your thoughts about the shooter's influence, just how significant the equipment factors can be before a shooter even lays a hand on the rifle. I think I have enough case studies with the various rifles I have owned to demonstrate my observations as valid, if you do not agree, please inform me of what kind of data you require to be satisfied, and I will do my best to accommodate if reasonable.

 

[grauhanen]

On January 28, 2018 this sounded like disappointment that your post had not elicited any response from me giving either an apology or congratulations:

I forgot your posted this... Called, and answered. Target 1 = 24 groups in a row <1/2", target 2 = 18 groups, target 3 = 20 groups... and you have nary a comment.... disappointing. I will take your silence as both an apology and congratulations. It does take a big man to admit when they are wrong.

On January 29, I wrote:

I'll apologize first for not being aware that you think I owed you a comment on the targets you posted in this thread in post #56 above.

Congratulations. Well done. You have groups in the teens to the sixes. I had no idea that these targets deserved my special attention, but I'm pleased to be able to say for all to see that you did well.

On Febraury 14, 2018:

Thank you for the recognition, however, this was not meant to be a demonstration of my shooting prowess, but an illustration of the effects of using a tuner on a rifle. I do not seek anyone's approval for my shooting, I know where I am at, I know where I'd like to be, and I know what I need to do to get there.

Although apology or congratulations seem to have been solicited earlier, this is welcome.

At any rate, I don't wish to draw you into any sort of argument, hence why I have not responded until now, but I would just like for you to recognize, despite your thoughts about the shooter's influence, just how significant the equipment factors can be before a shooter even lays a hand on the rifle. I think I have enough case studies with the various rifles I have owned to demonstrate my observations as valid, if you do not agree, please inform me of what kind of data you require to be satisfied, and I will do my best to accommodate if reasonable.

I appreciate that you don't want to be drawn into argument. I don't want argument either. Equipment, including rifle and its state of maintenance, ammo, sights or optics, shooting rest, shooting bench or table, weather conditions including wind and temperature, and lighting (have I missed anything?) all do indeed play a tremendously significant role in shooting results.

To go further, however, a shooter's experience in general and with his rifle and ability to adjust to it is very important. Few shooters produce lesser results with increasing time behind the trigger. Moreover, the shooter's amount of practice, his ability to read conditions, his breathing technique, trigger control, mental discipline, and frame of mind (ever try to shoot when something is really disturbing you, whether it's a lost set of keys, a ding in your new car, an accidentally damaged scope, an angry wife or girlfriend, yahoos at the tables next to you etc.?) also contribute significantly to shooting results. These factors should not be overlooked or dismissed from the overall equation.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

watching rabid and grau argue is like watching parents fight! Lol