The 1 MOA Hoax: How manufacturers have confused shooters

PSE said:
I think you're just fooling yourself but to each his own.

I've also done extensive load development and certainly more rounds fired are more relevant data points. Nobody I know who competes seriously uses only 3 round strings for load development and I would think ballistic engineers working for a major ammo manufacturer would know more than you or me. Not everything is a conspiracy to get you to waste money on ammo especially since they presently have problems just keeping up with the current demand.

So my question is then why not just do 2 rounds instead of 3 if sample size does not mean anything?? Think of the savings! Also I had not mentioned doing 20 round groups. I simply advocated an NRA 5X5 standard - but what do they know:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If you've ever taken a course in statistics and probability, it's the sample size and the repeatability that give you the most reliable data. The scientific method relies heavily on these factors but you do you.
Click to expand...

When working up a load , different nodes can be realized with three shot groups then fine tuned afterwards.
However, ballistic testing is quite a bit different than working up a load for a specific rifle.

Zeroing a rifle however can be done in two shots and actually is in Fclass competition for each distance.
That being said, the video was about 1 MOA accuracy, not working up loads or zeroing a rifle for that matter......
Cat
 
Last edited:
guntech said:
Nothing wrong with 3 shot groups. If you can't shoot a good 3 shot group, 5 shots won't improve it... and the barrel is just getting hotter.

Shortly before hunting season I always liked to stop at the range and fire 3 shots from a 'cold' gun to confirm my sighting in... the last time I did that it was 3 shots in a half inch group about 2 inches over center bull.
Click to expand...

Well if the first 3 shots are erratic, firing more isn’t going to help group size.

Having said that, 3 shots does not indicate the accuracy of the gun. I’ve experienced many times where an inaccurate rifle shot some amazing 3 round groups. One time my buddy stacked 3 rounds in the bottom of a pop can at just over 300yds with a beater Enfield. That particular rifle was a ~3 moa rifle.

And sure 3 shots is enough to confirm zero for a hunting rifle, but it isn’t a measure of accuracy.
 
How many hundreds of times has the fifth shot ruined an amazing group? Happens to me all the time if I stopped at three I might become over-confident... the fifth one keeps me humble and the distance to game reasonable.
 
Suppose you shoot 5 shots and they form a 1/4 moa group. What does shooting more groups prove? The degree of consistency of your reloading and the rate at which you produce rounds that are defective (if you define defective as ammo that creates fliers)?
 
PSE said:
I think you're just fooling yourself but to each his own.

I've also done extensive load development and certainly more rounds fired are more relevant data points. Nobody I know who competes seriously uses only 3 round strings for load development and I would think ballistic engineers working for a major ammo manufacturer would know more than you or me. Not everything is a conspiracy to get you to waste money on ammo especially since they presently have problems just keeping up with the current demand.

So my question is then why not just do 2 rounds instead of 3 if sample size does not mean anything?? Think of the savings! Also I had not mentioned doing 20 round groups. I simply advocated an NRA 5X5 standard - but what do they know:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If you've ever taken a course in statistics and probability, it's the sample size and the repeatability that give you the most reliable data. The scientific method relies heavily on these factors but you do you.
Click to expand...

So tell me this with statistics and probability if you shoot a 3 inch 3 shot group or even a 3 inch 5 shot group you mean to tell me your ok shooting 17 more rounds to confirm that 3” group, geez I know I’m no Philadelphia Lawyer but…….

Or if you shoot a 5 inch 5 shot group I’m pretty sure even the gurus at Hornady would stop there and say yup that’s no good, no point shooting anymore !

There’s statistics and probability and then there’s common sense.

And I do get why target guy use larger group samples, but to instill that mindset for hunting rifles is not necessary.
 
Last edited:
With my hunting rifle I am happy when after 10 or more 3 shot groups shot on 10 or more different days is averaging 1/2 to to 3/4 inch and the point of impact has not changed... as far as I am concerned that's sub moa and I don't need to fire 5 or 10 shot groups to prove anything.

Lots of times I worked a load up using 2 shot groups and then working the best of those with 3 shots, and repeating...
 
PSE said:
https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I

The above link is a really good debate from the Hornady Podcast with ballistic engineers about the controversy concerning group sizes among shooters.

In this Podcast and the follow up it is emphasized that sufficient sample size (number of shots in the group) and the repeatability of the experiment (number of groups shot) is the proper measurement of determining how a subject rifle is grouping with the ammo selected and ability of the shooter involved. (not to be confused with zeroing in which is something else entirely)

Anything else is just speculation. It is also clear that 3 shots is a very meager sample size and doing it once is pointless.

The point is you have to get off your wallet if you really want to determine how your rifle really groups with a certain type of ammo. (Yeah I know ammo is expensive but in order to get valid results it's necessary)

The NRA standard test 5X5 (average of 5 groups of 5 shots each) is a good indicator of how well your rifle will group.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're a number cruncher and not a Fudd. I really don't think that hunters care to have a precision shooting hunting rifle, as you discribe. You're comments should be carried-over to the precision firearms section on this forum. It's non-ecential to have such findings for a hunting rifle, nothing but hogwash!
 
guntech said:
With my hunting rifle I am happy when after 10 or more 3 shot groups shot on 10 or more different days is averaging 1/2 to to 3/4 inch and the point of impact has not changed... as far as I am concerned that's sub moa and I don't need to fire 5 or 10 shot groups to prove anything.

Lots of times I worked a load up using 2 shot groups and then working the best of those with 3 shots, and repeating...
Click to expand...

Good for you... I like shooting and putting a fourth and fifth into the cluster makes me smile.
 
hoytcanon said:
How many hundreds of times has the fifth shot ruined an amazing group? Happens to me all the time if I stopped at three I might become over-confident... the fifth one keeps me humble and the distance to game reasonable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out and that's exactly my point. Three shots did not give you as complete a picture of the precision of the combination of the rifle, shooter and ammo you chose to test that day as a 5 round group did. That flyer you thought you had is actually part of the group which became apparent when you fired more rounds.

As one noted gun writer and rifleman once pointed out (Layne Simpson I think, but don't quote me). A standard hunting rifle that will shoot all 10 shots into an inch and a half is extremely rare and to be treasured. It's because of the large sample size that what we originally thought of as flyers become the actual group.

More shots (more data points) gives one a more complete picture. That's the reality.

I also agree with the poster that said that if you're getting a bad group with 3 shots, 5 shots isn't going to make it better. Larger sample sizes that are repeated are to confirm excellence not bad performance. If you're not getting good groups with 3 shots your test is over. It's time to try with another combination.

I also agree with the poster who said that this has nothing to do with actual hunting since here we are talking about the comparatively low precision requirement of putting 1 round into an 8 inch kill zone at normal hunting distances. However since this thread is about hunting rifles capable of 1 MOA accuracy (or better) this (methodology of testing) is a relevant conversation.
 
I usually need one shot sometimes 2…. So if my rifle can shoot 3 shots in 1.25” why should I shoot more shots like five? Why should I shoot 5x5? I mean other than shooting to get better at it there is no reasons to shoot more than 3 shot groups for a hunting rifle imo!
 
Buckmastr said:
Brass life is much longer shooting 3 shot groups compared to 5. A consideration for those hunting with junk brass. Me.
Click to expand...

Eagleye said:
Yes, and throats last longer as well, lol.:)
Click to expand...

Brass and barrels last forever if you never squeeze the trigger, you also don't have to worry about primer and component shortages, range dues, tracking and cleaning game, eating nasty wild meat, or separation anxiety from your recliner.
 
I’m always surprised at the group sizes/patterns I see looking at targets at the gun club around hunting season.
Then I realize it’s my target and quickly rip it down before someone else sees it.
 
hoytcanon said:
Brass and barrels last forever if you never squeeze the trigger, you also don't have to worry about primer and component shortages, range dues, tracking and cleaning game, eating nasty wild meat, or separation anxiety from your recliner.
Click to expand...

Signature worthy lol
 
Buckmastr said:
I’m always surprised at the group sizes/patterns I see looking at targets at the gun club around hunting season.
Click to expand...

My assumption is a lot of dudes dont know how turrets work, and just click it 4 times, shoot again, click another 4, shoot again. No other way to explain how it took someone 12 shots to adjust from their POI being ~6" high and to the right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom