Strive for accuracy, don't settle for grouping

[mazda3gun]

Maybe it's the way you come off.
You ask a question, but when they answer and include a reasonable explanation that doesn't match your opinion, you call BS.
Precisely why I hit the ignore button on your last time out.

I never called BS, just had trouble understanding. Now, I'm starting to realize the differences/reasoning behind my Original Post and getting an answer for it.

Funny how you can't hear tone-of-voice on a forum...
It's all open to interpretation. I don't refuse to learn/listen, just have trouble learning the differences, stubborn in that way I guess.

[foxx]

Cool. :)

It was the same thing in archery. When a novice shooter (typically a kid) asked for help moving his sights because he could not hit the bull, I'd usually ask, "Why? Your arrows are hitting the target all over the place. They're so scattered I have no idea which way to even move your sights. Before we do that, you must start shooting groups in a consistent manner so we know the problem is your sight, not your form or equipment. Once you are able to do so, THEN we will move your sights so as to hit what you are aiming at. " (We would then move his group to the bull by moving his sights) Of course, at close range, we would never aim at the same spot twice or else we would destroy our arrows "Robin-Hooding" an arrow was not really something we strove for.

Also, it is my understanding that there are many forms of measuring or scoring for competition. Some events DO require that you hit a particular spot on a bull target or strike a steel plate of some kind at some distance. I believe it is called "shooting for score" when a bull's-eye is worth maybe ten points, and the next outer ring is nine, eight, seven, etc. Or a steel plate is all or nothing. Some contests measure the size of a particular group of 3-5 shots. I don't know. My point is there are competitions that shoot as you say, for the center of the bull.

But what you see on this or other forums is very often discussion limited to "groups" because it is assumed one takes into consideration the CONTEXT of that discussion or statement. You're not alone, Mazda. I remember last fall I was sighting in several deer rifles at 100 yd range, and I wanted to be certain they were all hitting 1.5 inches high at 100 yards... After doing so, I went down to gather my targets with several other hunters and, as I approached the target, I commented to myself, "Yep, that's good." I was pleased. The center of all the 1/2 to 3/4 inch 5 shot groups was 1.5 inches high of the bull. Someone next to me said, "That's pretty good. You're getting there, now you just have to adjust your sights a bit more." I just said, "No, they're fine. That's exactly where I want them to hit at this distance. Because of trajectory, I now know I can aim for the center of the kill zone and hit it anywhere out to 300 yards."

He didn't "get it" either. The difference between now and then, I did not think it was necessary to attempt to explain it any further than that. If he still did not understand, I really did not care. :)

[mazda3gun]

I think I get it...
The reason you folks bother with grouping is for load development. To see which mixture gets you tightest, then you might see how accurate that particular round is.

[RamShooter79]

yes that is basically it we were recently at a shoot and decided that we would have a fun shoot and shoot 5 shots offhand at 200 yards and who ever shot the best score would win the money we put in. One guy misunderstood what we said and thought we were shooting for the best group so he clicked his scope up a couple inches and shot his five shots on his target although he shot the best group it wasn't the best score all of his shots were on the nine/eight ring line. He ended up being rather upset when he lost because everyone else shot for the x and he shot for best group instead of best score

[foxx]

I think I get it...
The reason you folks bother with grouping is for load development. To see which mixture gets you tightest, then you might see how accurate that particular round is.

Umm...

Yeah, I think that's we're trying to say. Not entirely sure at this point, though.

In any event, "'Good shooting ' to ya!" :)

[110_Tactical]

Maybe it's the way you come off.
You ask a question, but when they answer and include a reasonable explanation that doesn't match your opinion, you call BS.
Precisely why I hit the ignore button on your last time out.
Indeed.

[mazda3gun]

Thank you sir. I appreciate it.
I do admit to being stubborn and very opinionated, just how I was raised I suppose. And the art of shooting for hunting and sustenance are my core, not the competition aspect. I do have a lot to learn and am here specifically for that. I'm aware I've come off 'abrasive' at times and I apologize.
It just truly boggles my mind, in the way I was taught to shoot, to merely hope for a close grouping of shots over hoping for one single dead-center bullseye shot.

However, can't believe I just remembered this, when I was taking my Rifleman's Merit Badge at Boy Scout camp one year, the goal was 5 shots covered by a quarter! DUH! I've been such a (insert "bad words" here because the PC Police will edit me anyway) all along and one of my major teachings in shooting has been what bothered me so much...
IRONY!

I know I come off abrasive and seems like I don't listen, I can't help what I've inherited from being around grump old men my entire life HAHAHA. I'm developing an understanding for the art. Next time I'm at the range, I'll pick up a couple different types of .30-06 ammo and try some group therapy. It was my mistake the way I worded things and may have let emotion carry through to the keyboard.
I'm merely full of myself, not a fool.....entirely.

So, for those that continue to chime in and trash me for the most recent post you read, read back into this a little and realize that I'm coming to a realization during this ENTIRE post. Thanks.

I was wrong for assuming. Oops, I'm only human!

[Kill N Grill]

After page one I was thinking TROLL then I saw Dec '13 and 300+ posts. Then I was thinking bag o' hammers. Now ??IDK??

[tufrthnails]

Just seen this and I believe it was fox talking about archery grouping and not being able to adjust the sights when arrows hit all over. So lets say you shoot 5 targets hitting the 1" bull each time. Nice shooting rifle. You just grouped 5 rounds 1" or less. So lets say you shoot 5 targets and no matter what you do the round will not consistently hit the bull but hit three inches in all directions of the bull well if you adjusted for every round you could shoot 500 rounds and never hit the bull except by luck. In order to hit bull of any given size the shooter and weapon first must be capable of hitting the same spot repeatedly I.E. shooting for grouping. I too have to shoot factory loads at this point although i am researching reloading to learn to load my own. I just posted a range report on my .270 and was surprised in the different size groups of the 4 different factory loads. One of them shooting touching groups-3/4" groups center to center. I now have a new factory load i will be hunting with and extremely confident in.

[Hotolds442]

Just seen this and I believe it was fox talking about archery grouping and not being able to adjust the sights when arrows hit all over. So lets say you shoot 5 targets hitting the 1" bull each time. Nice shooting rifle. You just grouped 5 rounds 1" or less. So lets say you shoot 5 targets and no matter what you do the round will not consistently hit the bull but hit three inches in all directions of the bull well if you adjusted for every round you could shoot 500 rounds and never hit the bull except by luck. In order to hit bull of any given size the shooter and weapon first must be capable of hitting the same spot repeatedly I.E. shooting for grouping.
Something similar to that.

[mazda3gun]

After page one I was thinking TROLL then I saw Dec '13 and 300+ posts. Then I was thinking bag o' hammers. Now ??IDK??

Don't have much to do at work most days, and I'm very enthusiastic about shooting in general.