Reply With QuoteEvery clapped-out junker I own can punch a single hole at 100 yards, and that is no lie. The key is -- fire just one shot.
Here's mine:
$200 Pawn shop rescue Axis .270
$125 Boyds Tactical stock from here
$3 trigger spring and set screw
$124 Axis HB 308 Take Off from here.
$6 bolt handle from ebay
$95 BSA 32x40 scope
I have a 22-250 build I have less in but its not quite a one hole gun yet.
$175 Pawn shop rescue Axis lefty 30-06
origional stock with shortaction trigger guard from another build and opened up to free float barrel
$3 trigger spring and set screw
$50 Axis HB fluted 22-250 Take Off from here.
old redfield scope I had laying around
Every clapped-out junker I own can punch a single hole at 100 yards, and that is no lie. The key is -- fire just one shot.
That's exactly what I was going to say since grouping wasn't mentioned in the question.Originally Posted by pisgah
Do we gotta count all the $ spent on powder, bullets, primers, dies, targets, gas to the range, etc. etc.?
A good wife and a steady job has ruined many a great hunter.
No apparently were shooting one shot and calling it good. I typically shoot 3 shot groups, but hey I'm sure y'all can save money all the way around with one shot groups that's great.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mine are pretty accurate guns too (one shot groups), it's that 2nd shot and beyond that gets me. LOL I had the same initial thought about single shot groups when I read OP's post but assumed he meant 3-5 shot groups.
It's always nice to get a shooter, whether the cheapo ones or high $$. Nothing like it for sure.
every rifle I have will shoot one hole,as long as I have enough ammo
Ya'll hang on I'm gonna drive closer
This happens. Not every time. The range offers says I should sort my brass. I probably botch it myself as well.
Nice group? Build or out of the box?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just a Byods Thumhole. The stock does make a difference. The real magic is the handloads.
I have pages and and pages of one whole wannabes.
I think a five shot group is more accurate on how a rifle shoots
I've always shot 3, that's about the point that my old 700 308 would start to walk around a little. I'm sure the pattern with the heavy barrel rifles can hold up longer as they heat up. If your going to argue for a five shot group why not 10, 15 or 20?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
3 shot groups are good for your ego.
5 Shot groups often show you things you might not want to see.
10 shot groups begin to tell the real story.
Good reading at the following link.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/...ps.html&page=1
Michael
I've been advised by some old school shooters that three is all you need. In any case, I never go by a single group. That is akin to flipping a coin three times, coming up heads three times, and announcing that the coin has two heads.
Variation of sample will always cause unclear results of any finite group.
The solution to this is not to consider single groups. I'll commonly collect data from an entire session, good, bad, and ugly. I consider the shooting session as a single 45 round group. This result begins to tell me about a particular load.
For example, at a recent shooting session, My best group was 0.4 inches and the worst was 1.4. But the average of 15 3-round groups was 0.75. That is the expected accuracy I report.
The advantages of shooting three round groups is that the aimer is not obliterated by impacts and it is easier to to evaluate each impact individually.
I know a guy who shoots one round groups. He carefully records the impact location of each load and the muzzle velocity. He keeps a notebook of every cartridge he has ever loaded, one-by-one. This is how he judges consistency.
Do what you think gets the best results. But, I' m not interested in ripping big wholes in paper.
My last trip to the range told a similar story. Now, I'm not that up-to-date on how to actually count a group - is it just count all 10 shots after the fact, or count them as they are being shot? Example: my sheet shows shots 2,3,4 as a good group. I doubt that I shot them in that order though, if that makes sense.
I think as many rounds as you can fire at one target would be great but time and money dictate the number of rounds fired at a time for a group. If three shots is all you want to do for your purposes and works so be it. I think consistency is key if all your 3 shot groups look the same over a period of time i think accuracy is proven.
I think that issue for some people is that range management my make changes your target obtrusive. I shoot at a yard indoor range with automatic target carriers. They only real limitation there is cycling your targets takes about 90 seconds.
Groups are counted by consecutive shots. If you are able to keep up with the individual shots as you shoot, the first 3 shots can also be counted as the first 3 of a 5 shot group and also as the first 3 of a 10 shot group. But it does not really give any useful information to just choose the 3 shots that happen to be the closest together.
3 shot groups are really not very useful except to make sight adjustments while sighting in a rifle/scope load.
If your rifle shoots 3-shot groups that are tee-tiny and they all have the same point of impact, then a 10-shot group will also be tee-tiny. The point to the article I linked to is that most rifles are accurate enough to occasionally string together 3 or 5 shots into a nice small group, but that these shots are only a small look at where the shots will land as part of a bigger pattern. The only way to prove this is the true accuracy level is to shoot more groups.
Try this: Shoot a 3-shot group and mark each shot. Next trip to the range shoot another 3-shot group at the same target. Repeat. After the third time you may be quite surprised to find that your target looks like a shotgun pattern.
If you are only interested in where the first cold barrel shot is going to go, just do the above one shot at a time for each visit to the range or if you have time after 10-15 between shots to allow the barrel to return to the "cold" state.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/...ps.html&page=1
Michael
Last edited by mag410; 01-29-2017 at 09:16 PM. Reason: spelling
Great to know. I did 10 shot last time, just for fun, so I'll keep it up. I'll bring it back each time after I shoot though, keep better track of the shots.
There's a statistical phenomenon known as sample-variation. A group is a sample. If you don't sort your ammo, the sample is considered a simple random sample. The average of any measurement calculated from any sample of arbitrary size is never the actual average measure. of a population. But, if the samples are big enough, or the measures of each item in the population is itself normal, than the average measure of each sample has a normal distribution with the same average measure as the population.
This is called the the "central limit theorem." It is one of the things that makes the world work.
The practical consequence is, if your interested in the consistency of an ammo measure and the ammo measure is distributed randomly, the size of the samples don't matter.
Single groups,3, 5, or 10 are all basically bad. The larger groups are less bad because the sample distribution has a smaller standard deviation. The CLT theorem predicts thIs also. If you consider only averages, the distribution of sample group sizes 3,5 and 10 have the same average and that average is the same has the entire population.
So, if you shoot enough groups you get a fair estimation.
The author of the article of the article is correct in saying that small groups are pointless when considered one at a time. It kind of like flipping a coin three times, getting heads three times, and declaring your coin lands only on heads.
Unless you are Hilary Clinton. Then you can flip a coin 13 times and get heads every time and no one questions it.
The truth is that you don't really get a good picture of accuracy until not 3,not 10, but 1000's of rounds. Fortunately, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is a rifle's accuracy relative to what is needed to fulfill its purpose.
Example -- in 50 years of deer hunting I have never had to fire more than three shots at a deer, and that only a couple of times. So, 3-shot groups are entirely appropriate as an accuracy measurement for my deer rifles. Mind you, I don't mean just one three-shot group, but if I have a rifle that allows me to fire 3-shot groups of, say, 1.25" or 1.5" at will, then I know I have a rifle more than adequate to its intended purpose. On the other hand, if a rifle's intended purpose is firing 200 rounds in an afternoon at distant prairie dogs, 3-shot groups ain't telling me much...
So if you shot these 3-shot groups, all with the same Point of Aim, how would you report you findings?
Last edited by mag410; 01-30-2017 at 12:44 AM. Reason: Fix picture
Same load or different?So if you shot these 3-shot groups, all with the same Point of Aim, how would you report you findings?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Making up a photoshop fantasy doesn't refute what I'm saying. I'm expressing a statistical truth. It doesn't contradict anything you said. In fact, it confirms it.
I simply don't like to stack many impacts on on the same target. I can't see the .223 holes from 100 yards b/c my scope is only 9x and lacks the resolution. The only way I can judge individual impacts is to keep the groups small. That is all.
I never claimed that group was the actual reflection of accuracy. It actually said it is rare. I don't rate accuracy by a single group. That would be disingenuous. So, you're preaching to the choir. Single groups are relatively meaningless. I said that too. Groups of more shots have more meaning be because the random variation is more pronounced. It said this too. None of this disagrees with you. In fact, it agrees.
When I consider a a rifle/ammo/shooter combinations, I use ALL the groups. I consider every shot fired. Only in aggregate, does the picture make sense. The CLT says the group size matters less because the average of the distribution of group sizes doesn't depend on the number of shots. The standard deviation of the group size distribution of more-shot groups is smaller. Therfore, more-shot groups individually represent the accuracy of a rifle/shooter/ammo better. But, individual groups never represent better that a complete average.
I compile these reports for my notes to record my progress. It holds nothing back. Every shot is accounted for.
Note: the 100 is a typo I was too lazy to fix. It is all 3 round groups.
Kent
It has been a while since I beat a dead horse.
There are lots of ways to skin a cat, your methodology is probably just a good as any other to determine a good load for your rifle. I used exactly the same method for many years to pick out good loads from bad. I dug deeper into accuracy testing because I was perplexed by the apparent wandering of POI between individual 3-shot groups. 10-shot groups show that the wander is not real, the true center stayed the same, the wander was just the random grouping with-in the normal distribution. Funny thing is that 20 shot groups are often no larger that the first 10 shots as 10 are enough to show true distribution.
Unless you are shooting tiny groups and they all have exactly the same point of impact, simply reporting/recording averages of group sizes does not give a complete picture of the accuracy/repeatability of the rifle/ammo/shooter combination.
In my "photoshop fantasy" below I just copied your very nice 3-shot group into the nice round pattern that 10 shot groups tend to make. Of course larger groups do not usually end up in 3 nicely packed clusters, but it is my fantasy and it makes the contrasts easier.
If you simply average the the 3 individual ~.375" groups, you would get ~.375"
Now suppose the same 9 shots were shot as Blue group, Yellow group then Red group. The overall group size is identical, but the average of the 3 individual 3-shot groups would be ~1".
Same shots, same target but more realistic data as the true center of the group the rifle/ammo/shooter combination produces is clearly evident.
Determining mean radius would be more useful still for comparing one very accurate load from another..
I'm through, the **** the buzzards have eaten the dead horse.
Michael
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks