The fun continues, and the group grows

caorach

Well-Known Member
You probably need to read the first two installments before this one as this is a continuation of the group that started in this thread:

Opinions on these groups

and grew somewhat in this thread:

The multi-load group gets bigger...

The premise I sort of started with was that most stalkers can reliably and consistently shoot a 3 inch group and that a well engineered rifle will shoot any ammo you put into it much better than the stalker can, in fact a well engineered rifle will even shoot a random mixture of loads and bullets better than the stalker can. I also think that many people are put off reloading by all the, largely unsupported, stuff they are told they have to do to make accurate ammo. I don't believe, based on the experiments I detail in this thread, that they have to do the vast majority of these things. So, if you are new to reloading then read this thread before you go any further.

After shooting the groups detailed in the above threads I acquired some 150 grain 308 bullets. I don't know what the bullet is, or who makes it, or anything at all about it other than that observation indicates it has a boat tail which, I'm assured, means it can be difficult to get it to shoot accurately.

I loaded these bullets on top of a load that I use for 150 grain bullets. I loaded 5 bullets with absolutely no working up or experimenting.

To add to the fun I also loaded them all at random different lengths. I started my seating die such that the bullet was loaded to about the limit of my magazine and each time I seated a bullet I screwed the die in by a random amount. The load I was using was down towards book minimum so I had no concerns that I might increase pressure beyond a safe level plus, obviously, I applied common sense.

Today I nipped out and shot the 5 "mystery bullet and mystery lengths" at my target, as you can see there was one disaster which was certainly my fault as it was starting to rain and it was the last round and I was keen to jump up and run to shelter so the concentration was gone just like happens if the deer is about to run and you have to take a fast shot. It must be said that all 5 of the mystery bullet rounds appear to have hit the target within my nominal 3 inch group, which is what I can be confident of shooting in the field, and I'd go so far as to say that they are within about an inch of my expected point of impact:



So, once more a total mystery bullet at totally random lengths appears to support my position that the shooter is the weak link and that much of the measuring and fiddling about which some insist you must do to reload accurate ammo is unnecessary for the stalker with a well engineered rifle designed to shoot a bullet where it is pointed. You might argue that my "flier" is actually down to the reloading, rather than the fault of the shooter, but if that is the case it is difficult to explain why 4 of the mystery bullet rounds are within the group plus at the time I knew I had a flier.

For a bit of further fun I fired 4 more rounds into the target to make it up to a nice round 20. The 4 rounds represented 2 completely different loads and bullets:



Now again this has grown the group slightly but these 4 were shot off sticks plus it was very windy indeed, the Met Office report that there was a 15mph wind with 38mph gusts at the nearest weather station (about half a mile from where I was shooting) so potentially I had about 4 inches of wind drift today. I didn't allow for wind but aimed dead on with each shot.

I'm trying to think of anything else I can do to further add "unconstrained variables" to the mix but at the minute having shot 8 different loads, 7 different bullets including a mystery bullet stuffed on top of a random 150 grain load, 5 loaded at random lengths and 4 off sticks I can't think of anything else. Answers on a postcard...
 
I think i have the answer ,prepare yourself, your tests show that you can shoot any bullet, any size, any weight, any where ,and the bloody outcome is there all on target and you sir are a damb fine shot.:D hoping for further instalments on your quest. for the one. atb doug
 
An interesting thread and fits with my feelings recently after some zeroing and practice. I left with a vague, "Not bad, but could be better" attitude to my shooting (all factory ammo in different calibres). A couple of days ago I needed to create some shelter for the chickens and got out the board I'd used to attach the targets to. Without the lines of the target, they were really good groups and a mental note was made to not to be as particular next time!
 
you sir are a damb fine shot.:D

Actually I don't think it demonstrates this at all - I think it shows that I'm an average shot but the rifle is able to shoot any load with a level of consistency and accuracy way beyond my skill level. The key here is the rifle as it would appear that it has been designed to shoot a bullet, any bullet, to where it is pointed and the only variation is in my ability to do the pointing. It also highlights that, especially for the beginner in reloading, the process to create good, accurate ammo is simple and requires little in the way of gadgets or complexity. The time others might tell you to spend measuring things or messing about with minor variables would actually be MUCH better spent practicing your shooting as this is where the major improvements can be made.
 
I think it shows that I'm an average shot but the rifle is able to shoot any load with a level of consistency and accuracy way beyond my skill level.

I can understand the concept of a rifle in a machine rest being able to 'outshoot' a rifleman who is actually holding that same rifle and shooting with it.

What you've said I don't understand. Am I being particularly dense?
 
What you've said I don't understand.

In what way? I think you are correct in the sense that if the rifle were securely fixed then it would put all the loads into almost one hole and so all the significant error in the shooting is mine. If my mass produced rifle can do this then, in theory, so can any other one. However I don't have a machine rest and so have to rely on the fact that most stalkers using stalking scopes etc, including myself, can consistently shoot a 3 inch group. If the group had been 6 inches then you might reasonably claim that the lack of my applying some of the reloading mumbo-jumbo was a factor in the large group, and I'd have to agree. As it was the group was about the size I'd have expected when I use ammo that I know I can occasionally get very small groups from and so it seems fair to conclude, as I have done, that any well engineered rifle will shoot any bullet and load better than the shooter without the need for gadgets or any of the more arcane reloading techniques which we are often told are necessary to make "accurate" ammo. I suspect that there is no such thing as accurate ammo but only accurate rifles which is to say a well engineered rifle which will shoot anything to where it is aimed.

This is important for the beginners who come on here looking advice and end up spending a fortune on "stuff," engaging in practices which are unnecessary and believing in "truths" which have little or no basis in fact in the context of stalking and shooting at stalking distances. The beginner should keep their reloading as simple as possible and only add complexity if they need it, and can establish that it makes a difference.

However, there are some fundamental flaws and assumptions in my experiment. The big flaw is that what I've done is suggestive that I'm correct but comes far short of proof. The big assumption is that this applies to stalkers shooting deer at normal stalking distances.

I started with a theory and gathered some evidence which, while far short of proof, at least supports it and provides no evidence that it is totally incorrect.

When it comes to the longer range target shooting I have little knowledge of the factors involved and I also suspect that the issue is confounded by the tendency of people to display their best group as an example of their shooting, rejecting many other groups for a range of reasons. This can lead to delusions as to the actual size of group the shooter can repeatedly and consistently shoot. However, because of my theory my stated opinion is that, assuming a well engineered rifle, then the shooter is the next biggest factor and the impact of much of the reloading "mumbo-jumbo" would vanish into the noise or would be effective only at the psychological level.
 
A very interesting and worthwhile thread. Sixty years or so ago when I started shooting most of us knew little or nothing about loads etc: We just bought what ammo we could, and went out and shot things. Memeory fades but I seem to remember doing pretty well. Now it seems people spend considerable quantities of money and time on trying to improve thier shooting, and there's nothing wrong with that, but do the overall results really merit it? I am not suggesting this applies to target shooting.
 
In what way? I think you are correct in the sense that if the rifle were securely fixed then it would put all the loads into almost one hole and so all the significant error in the shooting is mine.
Ah. That isn't what I was thinking.
What I was thinking is that for shooting consistently, a machine rest conceivably has an advantage over a rifleman - so a rifle in such a rest might outshoot the same rifle more-conventionally in the grip of a rifleman.



If my mass produced rifle can do this then, in theory, so can any other one.
So, we don't actually know what your rifle is doing at all.
All we know is what you and your rifle/sight/ammuniton are doing in the weather you're doing it in: and it seems to me unlikely that, if your best shooting with a magic rifle that always shot exactly to point of aim was a 3" group, you would have managed to shoot the current 2" group with this rifle.

As for any other rifle doing the same, well in theory I suppose - but in practice?

However I don't have a machine rest and so have to rely on the fact that most stalkers using stalking scopes etc, including myself, can consistently shoot a 3 inch group.
I think that this is where I am, perhaps wrongly, perceiving the disintegration of logic.
You have so far shown that you can shoot numerous shots into a 2" group with the same rifle, but under a variety of conditions and using a wide range of ammunition.
Onwards....
As it was the group was about the size I'd have expected when I use ammo that I know I can occasionally get very small groups from and so it seems fair to conclude, as I have done, that any well engineered rifle will shoot any bullet and load better than the shooter...
A rifle might well be able to hold a smaller groups from a machine rest that when it is in the hands of a rifleman. Further, I can easily understand the assertion that under field conditions, most of us could probably with confidence hold a 3" group at 100yds.
However, you have shown that you and your rifle with randomish ammuntion can consistently hold a 2" group.
What I conclude from that, in the absence of any understanding of what the rifle itself is doing, is that you are good, consistent shot.

...without the need for gadgets or any of the more arcane reloading techniques which we are often told are necessary to make "accurate" ammo. I suspect that there is no such thing as accurate ammo but only accurate rifles which is to say a well engineered rifle which will shoot anything to where it is aimed.
I agree about not needing arcane gadgets and it is consistent, rather than arcane, technique that is required.
Yet my experience (and perhaps not this demonstration, either) does not support a denial of the idea that some ammunition works well, and some less-well, in a particular rifle. Slight, uncomplicated tweaks to seating-depth and charge seem in my case to have made useful improvement in accuracy.

In summary, may I propose this thought:
Assuming that, as you suggest, in the field most stalkers cannot consitently hold better than 3" at 100yds, the man who has ammuntion, rifle and sight that will hold 0.5" off a bipod under comfortable conditions on the range will be able to hold 3.5".
The man who is happy with his loads shooting 2" on the range will be able to hold 5" in the field.

Does that make sense?
:)

For my part, I am happy if I, with my stalking- and target-rifles, can put 5 bullets into under 1" on the range: I don't win target competitions, but any problems I've had stalking have not been rifle- or ammunition-related.
Ideally, I want less from .22 centrefires - but I find them easier to shoot, which helps!
 
Last edited:
In summary, may I propose this thought:
Assuming that, as you suggest, in the field most stalkers cannot consitently hold better than 3" at 100yds, the man who has ammuntion, rifle and sight that will hold 0.5" off a bipod under comfortable conditions on the range will be able to hold 3.5".
The man who is happy with his loads shooting 2" on the range will be able to hold 5" in the field.

I have considered that aspect of it and the problem is that the error on the part of the rifle and shooter are likely to be random in both magnitude and direction and so, especially with small sample sizes, I suspect that the group size would tend to be rather smaller than the maximum group size. The probability of the errors having maximum magnitude and both being in the same direction all happening with every shot of a, say, 3 shot group is likely to be pretty low.

My guess, and I simply don't have the stats to even try proving this, is that with small sample sizes (say 3 or 5 shot groups) then the probability of a small group might be highest where the maximum error of both shooter and rifle were approx equal.

In demonstrating that a large number of random loads, at random lengths, with random bullets (with weights between 110 and 165 grains and velocities between 2400ish and 3100ish so gravity is getting a look in here) can shoot inside a 3 inch circle under field conditions including off sticks, which is what we expect from most stalkers in the field, I haven't actually shown anything about a stalker shooting a single load in the field other than that it doesn't matter what his single load is IF you are willing to accept my 3 inch premise and to accept that it applies to the small sample used in my experiment.

As I've pointed out there are a range of flaws with my experiment, it is however most instructive and in a limited manner it is supportive of my position that the load doesn't matter enough to change the group size of the average shooter significantly. While there might be shooters who can do much better than average, and I've seen some very impressive groups shot, I've never met one who could reliably and consistently shoot a large number of rounds, under different conditions and off both bipod and sticks, into anything smaller than 3 inches.
 
While there might be shooters who can do much better than average, and I've seen some very impressive groups shot, I've never met one who could reliably and consistently shoot a large number of rounds, under different conditions and off both bipod and sticks, into anything smaller than 3 inches.

That's a very plausible observation.
I would point out, however, that the folk who can consistently shoot into under 3" at 100yds have a (shooter-group)+(rifle/sight/cartridge-group) of 3" at 100yds. That is all we know about them and their gear.
They might be able to hold bang-on every time, but their rifle would shoot only 3" from a machine-rest on an indoor range.
They might barely be able to hold 2.5", but their rifle etc. shoots 0.5"
They might have a magic rifle that always shoots through the same hole, but they might be unable to hold better than 3" themselves.

The statistical significance of small sample sizes when there are many variables is certainly not great.
However, I'd suggest that it certainly matters shooter by shooter and rifle by rifle what the load is: but only inasmuch as the load/rifle shoot well enough under ideal conditions. As I say, my preference is for 5 shots under 1" at 100yds - others may have a higher or lower standard, but I know that with that level of accuracy and a load with whose performance I'm familliar, I can shoot ethically to the required distances.

So, I'd say that there is such a thing as 'accurate ammunition', and it varies from rifle to rifle even among those rifles of reputable make. This concept will be familiar to users of factory ammuntion (who generally try a few makes and stick with the best-performing) as well as to hand-loaders (who may spend hundreds Sterling on gizmos, or just tweak with micrometer and balance and apply careful, consistent technique; but will be able to improve their accuracy to a useful degree).

I seem to recall reading somewhere that 7 shots is required for p=0.05. Or I might have made that up. Anyhow, I test with groups of 5 without cooling-time, as that is the most I've ever fired at hinds one after another. Not exactly scientific - not showing the biggest possible group, perhaps - yet not far short.

However, I'm certain that if I satisfied myself with 5 shots in 3" under ideal conditions at 100yds, by field groups would be much nearer 6": or a foot at 200yds - not good enough.
 
"I seem to recall reading somewhere that 7 shots is required for p=0.05. Or I might have made that up."

A discussion with number two child (bit good on maths) ensued, with a conclusion that this might be right, but can't work out why. If my statistic knowledge is OK, p=0.05 represents a 95% likelihood that the result you have is true (ie not due to chance). We can't work out if 7 represents this, but logically a 7 group in 1" at 100 is going to be more significant than a 5 or a 3. The recent Marksmanship sessions in the NW region by Bradley Bourner suggested a 5 group minimum. Other mathematicians may wish to comment!
 
T
So, I'd say that there is such a thing as 'accurate ammunition', and it varies from rifle to rifle even among those rifles of reputable make. This concept will be familiar to users of factory ammuntion (who generally try a few makes and stick with the best-performing) as well as to hand-loaders (who may spend hundreds Sterling on gizmos, or just tweak with micrometer and balance and apply careful, consistent technique; but will be able to improve their accuracy to a useful degree).

I seem to recall reading somewhere that 7 shots is required for p=0.05. Or I might have made that up. Anyhow, I test with groups of 5 without cooling-time, as that is the most I've ever fired at hinds one after another. Not exactly scientific - not showing the biggest possible group, perhaps - yet not far short.

However, I'm certain that if I satisfied myself with 5 shots in 3" under ideal conditions at 100yds, by field groups would be much nearer 6": or a foot at 200yds - not good enough.

Some of the ammo used in my group was factory ammo and no cooling time was allowed though, clearly, I had to stop to take the photos as the group developed etc.

However, what I'm saying is that I can reliably and consistently shoot a 3 inch group, this is a statement of fact and the size of group you can shoot does not effect the data gathered in my experiment because it was me doing the shooting, and despite using a range of ammo, range of bullets, range of loads and range of cartridge lengths plus shooting off a bipod and sticks in some unfavourable weather I managed to achieve this. You claim you can reliably and consistently shoot a 1 inch group and so with a well engineered rifle and my random selection of ammo, bullets, loads, lengths and field position rests you'd still be able to shoot a 1 inch group. My position is that the rifle performed better than I did in the sense that I stuffed all sorts of random things into it and it still allowed me to deliver my normal group, under the same circumstances with your one inch group it will also perform better than you do and so if you'd shot my 20 rounds instead of me you'd have delivered a one inch group.

Even with the best of loads I can still only count on consistently shooting into a 3 inch group and so myself, and by far the vast majority of other stalkers, just have to accept this and to stalk and shoot within our limitations. However, that is not the issue here as this was merely a demonstration that shooting various random and, to be honest, pretty crazy variations of ammo has no effect on group size because the rifle puts them where it is pointed and the group is down to the shooter.
 
However, what I'm saying is that I can reliably and consistently shoot a 3 inch group, this is a statement of fact
I would dispute that it is a statement of fact, since your group as illustrated is about 1.5" if we discount the flyer (which you 'called'). The fact might be that you can reliably and consistently shoot a group of 3" or less


You claim you can reliably and consistently shoot a 1 inch group...
Well, I certainly claim that I can do that under ideal conditions on the range with a particular rifle with ammuntion that suits it. I've also said that I agree with your 'reliable 3"' assertion for shooting in the field, where variations in position, weather and so on are at work.

...and so with a well engineered rifle and my random selection of ammo, bullets, loads, lengths and field position rests you'd still be able to shoot a 1 inch group.
I might be entirely on my own with this opinion, but that seems a complete non sequitur. I suspect it means that under most field conditions, with my rifle and ammuntion, I'd probably manage a 3" group.
Under ideal conditions (rifle/ammuntion error)+(Dalua error) = 1"
Under field conditions (rifle/ammunition error)+(Dalua error) = 3"


My position is that the rifle performed better than I did in the sense that I stuffed all sorts of random things into it and it still allowed me to deliver my normal group
I can't understand this position, as in fact what you've shown that in your case
(rifle/ammuntion error)+(Caroach error) = ~1.5"
Really, I cannot understand the extrapolation that 'the rifle shot better than you': it might by itself shoot a smaller group than you could hold using a magic 'one-hole group' rifle - but we can't tell that from this exercise, and given its random diet I think it unlikely.



under the same circumstances with your one inch group it will also perform better than you do and so if you'd shot my 20 rounds instead of me you'd have delivered a one inch group.
Again, I am perhaps being unusually dense, but I can't understand how that could possibly happen.

was merely a demonstration that shooting various random and, to be honest, pretty crazy variations of ammo has no effect on group size because the rifle puts them where it is pointed and the group is down to the shooter.
The rifle puts the bullets where it is pointed within its group-size, and the additional size of the resultant group over that is down to the shooter's group-size.

In my view, the former can be reduced by using ammunition that suits the rifle, whether factory or consistently and carefully home-loaded, and the latter can be reduced by practice: I feel that both have a role in maintaining sportsmanlike competence in the field use of the rifle.
 
Last edited:
The rifle puts the bullets where it is pointed within its group-size, and the additional size of the resultant group over that is down to the shooter's group-size.

In my view, the former can be reduced by using ammunition that suits the rifle, whether factory or consistently and carefully home-loaded, and the latter can be reduced by practice: I feel that both have a role in maintaining sportsmanlike competence in the field use of the rifle.

I agree with the first part - the shooter is the weak link and a good modern rifle will always be better. However, as my groups demonstrate, the actual ammo you put in the rifle doesn't make any difference or at least it doesn't in my rifle.

However I'm uncomfortable with the concept of discarding some of the holes in the target because they don't take your fancy. That "flier" is as much part of the group as the other rounds I fired at it. If I'd fired those 20 shots at deer then there is no way, with hindsight, that I could have wandered up to one of the deer and said "oh, sorry about that, that shot was a flier so if you don't mind standing around for a while I'd like to pretend it didn't happen and fire another one." The deer is unlikely to offer to assist in bolstering my ego and reducing my group size. Hence my assertion that the stalker can reliably and consistently shoot a 3 inch group. There are a very many who believe they can reliably and consistently shoot smaller groups but this belief is sometimes nothing but a delusion and depends upon ignoring random shots that don't take their fancy. There are, of course, others who can honestly always land the rounds in a group much smaller than 3 inches but my experience has been that they are very, very rare indeed.

I once put 50 rounds into what I considered a very tiny group indeed and I could easily of held this up as evidence of my Nimrod like qualities but the truth is it was pure luck, a good night, my concentration was on form, there was no wind and so on.

I think we should maybe have another "black dot of doom" fun shoot? Is anyone else game for it? As some might remember we put a single one inch black dot on a bit of white paper and shot at it from 100 yards with the maximum support being prone off a bipod with your standard stalking setup, no adjusting zero, fitting target scope etc. The key is that you ONLY shoot 3 shots - no practice, no discarding some shots because of freak events, no dumping the first group in the bin because you are zeroed at 200 yards and so didn't do so well etc. Last time we did it I think there were 53 shots fired at the black dot and 7 hit it. Everyone who took part had realistic expectations, got pretty much the result they expected, and enjoyed the fun so with the days getting longer and the weather improving maybe I'll start another thread, if I can find the old one with the PDF of the target.
 
I agree with the first part - the shooter is the weak link and a good modern rifle will always be better. However, as my groups demonstrate, the actual ammo you put in the rifle doesn't make any difference or at least it doesn't in my rifle.

You're being very mischeivous: it is naughty to agree with me over something that I am emphatically not saying!:)

What I'm actually saying is that we have no idea whatsoever what the weak link is in your experiment. That is, assuming there is in any practical sense a weak link, since IMO the shooting could not be considered bad in any case and given the experimental conditions is actually very good.
You are assuming that it is the shooter, but that is because of your incorrect application of the observation that you (and as we have genuinely agreed, me and most other folk) cannot reliably do better than a 3" group at 100yds under field conditions.

However, if we observe what is afoot here (and include the 'called' flyer - valid point!) you have genuinely held a group of, at the very worst, 2". Given the random nature of the ammunition, weather and position, it seems likely to me that you are actually holding a fair bit smaller than the actual group, and that the rifle/ammo/weather-combination is responsible for its fair share of the 2". We don't know, of course.

I do feel, however, that I can confidently assert that if you were holding only 3", the actual group (unless the rifle is a magic one-hole rifle) would be bigger than 3".

There are a very many who believe they can reliably and consistently shoot smaller groups but this belief is sometimes nothing but a delusion and depends upon ignoring random shots that don't take their fancy.
I suppose I'm one of these folks - delusional or otherwise someone else will have to judge. I believe that I can shoot 1" or under in good conditions off a bipod and with well-matched rifle and ammuntion. When doing this, I certainly don't ignore 'flyers', but I would put ones I'd 'called' out of the reckoning when it came to load-development. To act otherwise would be absurd, would it not?

I once put 50 rounds into what I considered a very tiny group indeed and I could easily of held this up as evidence of my Nimrod like qualities but the truth is it was pure luck, a good night, my concentration was on form, there was no wind and so on.
Here, I think, the arguments become clearer.
Nimrod was a mighty hunter, not a target-rifleman or load-development technician!
Despite your assertion that your little group was 'pure luck' (you are a modest chap withal:)), you do point out correctly that it can't have been - it was 50rnds, you were on form, there was no wind and so on - these things are not 'pure luck' - but rather the things that make for good circumstances for testing loads, unfussily and inexpensively worked-up, for their relative accuracy in a particular rifle.


So, what was I arguing again?
Ah, yes - perhaps that although you assert that there is no such thing as accurate ammuntion, we might perhaps agree that there is inaccurate ammunition, for a particular rifle, at least? If so, then we might further agree that none of it has found its way into your experimental target yet?
 
So, what was I arguing again?
Ah, yes - perhaps that although you assert that there is no such thing as accurate ammuntion, we might perhaps agree that there is inaccurate ammunition, for a particular rifle, at least? If so, then we might further agree that none of it has found its way into your experimental target yet?

I think you are right in what you say, my experiment is only marginally valid at demonstrating anything because there are just too many variables that I simply can't account for and in truth I introduced more and more of them as I went along, including stuff like shooting off sticks, that I could easily have avoided.

I'm keen to avoid the idea that I've proven anything but do believe that I've demonstrated something useful, especially to someone just starting out in shooting or reloading. But I have shown that I didn't do any worse with random ammo than I could have with "accurate" ammo.

In making this statement I have, of course, given myself away as clearly there is ammo that, despite my experiment, I also consider to be "accurate" and so, by inference, there must also be ammo I consider less accurate.

So, at some level I do agree with you. At the level of the deer stalker shooting at reasonable ranges in field conditions, however, I think time is much better spent practising shooting rather than measuring cartridges and most of the "rituals" close to the hearts of some reloaders are of no practical value. You might be right that there is inaccurate ammo in some rifles but in my rifle none of it is ever less accurate than I am once the groups start getting statistically meaningful. If I shoot a lot of "accurate" ammo with my rifle I will eventually pull enough fliers and other errors to end up with a 3 inch group. As demonstrated above if I shoot a reasonable range of absolutely random ammo I also end up with a 3 inch group.

I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do next with this target as I don't have any more variations of loads and bullets to try so I'm not in a position to establish if the group would get a lot bigger if I kept shooting more and more random stuff at it. I don't think it will and I remain convinced that I'm the weak link in this. However, for some entertainment I'm trying to get the black dot of doom fun shoot going again in the General Discussion forum. It sounds simple and it should be easy but yet it is amazing how hard it is to hit that black dot.
 
But I have shown that I didn't do any worse with random ammo than I could have with "accurate" ammo.
With respect, I really don't think you have shown that at all. Your belief that you've done that is based on a the straw-man of a notional 3" group, which although as you say doubtless is realistic as far as random field-shooting goes, is a good deal bigger than many of us (including you) can reliably produce in practice situations - even with random ammunition - as your 2"-so-far group shows.


So, at some level I do agree with you. At the level of the deer stalker shooting at reasonable ranges in field conditions, however, I think time is much better spent practising shooting rather than measuring cartridges and most of the "rituals" close to the hearts of some reloaders are of no practical value
.
As I've said, preparing accurate ammunition and practicing shooting are both important elements in maintaining a decent level of field-shooting.

You might be right that there is inaccurate ammo in some rifles but in my rifle none of it is ever less accurate than I am once the groups start getting statistically meaningful.
I'm still not sure that we know what 'statistically significant' is in this context - I suspect it's about 7rounds. I can only repeat that we have no idea how accurate the rifle+rounds are and how accurate you are - you know only the sum of those accuracies.


If I shoot a lot of "accurate" ammo with my rifle I will eventually pull enough fliers and other errors to end up with a 3 inch group. As demonstrated above if I shoot a reasonable range of absolutely random ammo I also end up with a 3 inch group.
1. It seems to me still a 2" group
2. 'random' is not necessarily the same as 'inaccurate'
3. pulling shots, if you 'call' them, doesn't IMO count when assessing the accuracy of load/rifle combinations.
4. I suspect that you will have to shoot a good deal less inaccurate ammunition than accurate before you reach a group as big as 3".


My own feeling, as someone who started reloading only 18months ago or so (although I'm not new to rifle-shooting) is that there is a law of diminishing returns in the pursuit of accuracy in handloads - but that with ordinary gear, commonplace tweaking and only limited expenditure in powder and ball can straightforwardly at least match the best factory-load accuracy.

Given that, an experiment that shows that a good shot using a good rifle can put a lot of different loads into 2" at 100yds should certainly encourage beginners to practice until they can manage a similar degree of accuracy under field conditions and positions:
but should emphatically not be taken by them to suggest that it is futile to try different factory-loads or tweak handloads, until an adequate degree of rifle/ammunition accuracy is reached so that field-performance is optimised.

The Black Spot game sounds entertaining, although it ain't exactly related to the current discussion of group-sizes. Those of us whose POI on sporting rifles is an inch or two above the POA at 100yds would be much-disadvantaged by having no mark to hold on.
That, at least, is my excuse.;)
 
Last edited:
The Black Spot game sounds entertaining, although it ain't exactly related to the current discussion of group-sizes. Those of us whose POI on sporting rifles is an inch or two above the POA at 100yds would be much-disadvantaged by having no mark to hold on.
That, at least, is my excuse.;)

That is the fun of the thing - it is the same when shooting deer as they don't have well defined aiming marks either so I think it might actually be a reasonable representation of likely performance on deer.

Last time we did it my prone shooting was awful and, as you say, I found shooting at a blank bit of paper a few inches from a black dot tricky. However I felt that shooting off sticks was easier, maybe less time to think about it or something, and I actually did a little better off sticks than prone. Either way it is good fun and for me it was useful as it made me think a bit about my shooting.
 
Back
Top