Accuracy in the field?

So a rifle that shoots to within 1moa of the poa at 500 yds may result in a group size of around 10 inches at that distance, going by your figures.

I have always taken the MOA to be the diameter in which my bullet will arrive rather than a radius of accuracy ?
If I bolt the stock of my 1MOA rifle to an imovable object the bullet will arrive within a 1" circle @ 100yds or a 5" circle @ 500yds.
I've never fired at anything 500yds away but can (with reasonable consitency - and after a lot of practice) hit an 8" plate at 300yds off sticks or my rucksack on the landy's bonnet, a lot less less consistently (TBH) free standing.

So in answer to the OP, into a 4" diamater target area, about 200yds is my limit off a rest and 100yds free standing although I have a habit of pulling up and right and destroying the shackle holding my 4" practice gong ....

shackle.jpg
 
the black dot of death proved one thing

all these tiny groups posted are seldom replicated under field conditions

The BDS stalker's shooting competitions are a very good practice for anyone looking to test themselves


Here are the "real world" winning scores in the BDS Highlands Branch Winter Competition at Cawdor a week ago. Admittedly on a range but blowing a hoolie on the day & squinting directly at the sun!

"Highland Branch Winter Shoot 2018
roe silhouette target (no visible aiming point)- five shots @ 200yds

Macarthur Cup (smallest group)
1st Ali M. - 29mm
2nd Andrew Y. - 35mm
3rd Seamus N - 62mm

Hamish Shaw Trophy (highest score ex 50)
1st Ali M - 48 (smaller group)
2nd David A - 48
3rd equal Seamus N, Charlie R, Andrew Y - 45

Ian
 
I posted this elsewhere on this sight

I think you guys are a little anal with your accuracy wants.
:stir:
Every gun owner wants the best accuracy out of their rifle. First, correct me if I'm wrong, your 1" shooter is 'off the bench'? Have you measure those groups under field conditions? Secondly, with a one inch group is no shot is more than 1/2 inch from point of aim. With a two inch group none is more than one inch from point of aim. Even with some of your 'tiny' deer, I cant see that makes any difference. I think Partitions are the best compromise for small to elk size deer. They open fast and penetrate well.

maybe I can explain better. Suppose you set your scope dead on at 100yds. If you shoot a group of 5 shots 4" left of that spot, but all within one inch of each other that is a 1"group. Not a 4" group. your scope's aim point is 4" left. If the sighting is moved 4' right your aim point is moved, but the group size should stay the same. Hence no shot is more than 1/2" from its center. I hope I've made it clearer. capt david.
[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
 
You're quite wrong there. 1-MOA = 1.047" / 100 yards. 100 metres = 109.361 yards, so a 100M 1-MOA group is 1.047 X 1.09361 = 1.145 inches.

US , UK NRA / ICFRA ring type targets for 'Target Rifle' and F-Class are drawn in MOA and this changed to diameter in inches for the appropriate distance, these being 200, 300, 500, 600, and 1,000 yards. (700 is never used and 800/900 use the 1,000 yard target centre giving them more generous ring sizes.

For Fullbore / Target / Palma rifle, and US equivalent, the 5-ring (10-ring in US) is 2-MOA and the 'V' ('X' in US) is 1-MOA, so 20.9 inches / 10.47 inches diameters for the 1,000 yards target centre, actually rounded a little.

For F-Class, the target centres are half those values, so the 1,000 yard 'V' / 'X' is half-MOA just over 5 inches and the 'Bull' 1-MOA or approx 10.5 inches.

A true 100 yard 1-MOA group is 1.047" centre to centre (rounded to 'one inch' in common use) irrespective of the group pattern. There are other arguably more useful measurements such as the 'mean radius' approach which calculates the exact group centre and averages the radius from that point to the centre of each bullet hole. This is the approach military procurement bodies and ammunition companies use in specifying grouping ability specifications and measuring actual performance against them. It is also used by PC programs such as One Hole.

The downside of centre to centre is that only two shots out of as many as were fired determine the group's size, so 9 shots out of 10 might be touching, but if the 10th impact is two inches away at 100 yards it is a 2-MOA group. The mean radius method gives a much more accurate assessment of average performance. Nevertheless, it is the centre to centre method that is used in all recreational precision shooting and when you see 0.1XX-MOA groups quoted in a Benchrest match result that is exactly what it is. (ie at 100 yards, a 6PPC shooting 0.243" dia bullets and shooting a 0.1500-MOA group shoots a single hole whose outer edges are 0.4000" at their widest point, in a 1,000 yards match 1.8135" edge to edge. 100 yard BR record groups are much smaller than that but nobody has yet attained a 0.15-MOA group at 1,000, but it's getting there ........!)

Yes I know

The point being if you hit 1" high at 100 yards your within 1 MOA of aim point

If the next shot misses 1" low your still within 1 min of aim point

I" left? 1MOA from point of aim 1" right 1moa from point of aim


SO in theory you can have a 2" group and still be within 1moa of point of aim


What we seem to do is shoot a three shot group which may be 2" high and 1" right of aim point and call it sub MOA??

OK the diameter of the group is 1 MOA but its not on point of aim, so is it 1 MOA from point of aim?

We use 1" MOA for windage and elevation adjustment, but unless that three shot group is all around the point of aim, does it really qualifie as 1moa accuracy?

When I shot targets we were scoring on the paper so a 1" group 2" away from the bull didn't score you points.

If you have a 1MOA dot and all three rounds go inside that dot. Then your shooting 1 MOA accuracy in my book
 
Yes I know

The point being if you hit 1" high at 100 yards your within 1 MOA of aim point

If the next shot misses 1" low your still within 1 min of aim point

I" left? 1MOA from point of aim 1" right 1moa from point of aim


SO in theory you can have a 2" group and still be within 1moa of point of aim


What we seem to do is shoot a three shot group which may be 2" high and 1" right of aim point and call it sub MOA??

OK the diameter of the group is 1 MOA but its not on point of aim, so is it 1 MOA from point of aim?

We use 1" MOA for windage and elevation adjustment, but unless that three shot group is all around the point of aim, does it really qualifie as 1moa accuracy?

When I shot targets we were scoring on the paper so a 1" group 2" away from the bull didn't score you points.

If you have a 1MOA dot and all three rounds go inside that dot. Then your shooting 1 MOA accuracy in my book
you are describing the difference between point of aim and point of impact, and that is a zeroing issue not an accurracy issue, if your zero is absolutely spot on and wind doesnt play a part then wherever the centre of your group falls is the centre that you measure the radius of the group from, on a paper target as you are describing it, the position of the group will effect your score it won't effect the measurement of the group size.
 
To me there seems to be a mixing up of ideas - perhaps not surprisingly as we use the term in everyday shooting language a bit loosely

1 MOA is just that - 1 sixtieth of one degree of angle

What linear distance that angle subtends (projects) on a flat surface is a function of distance from the point of origin

So - as we all know at 100m a minute of angle subtends a linear distance of just over an inch

When we talk about the physical accuracy of a rifle we talk about its ability to repeatedly cast a bullet to the same place (I know there are loads of other elements involved)

So a 1 MOA rifle is able of casting a group of rounds within a cone who's diameter is one inch (not 2 inches) irrespective of where the point of aim was relative to the cone of impact (so long as that POA remained the same)

When we assess our own efforts we look for that repeatability in our shooting efforts - so the diameter of the group is important to us

We also look at how close we are to the bull (supposedly our point of aim) as with hunting and target shooting there is no point in just having a light group if we can't hit what we are aiming at (a tight group on the deer's arse is not cool)

How close we are to bull is a function of our accuracy taking account of all the variables - we ourselves, distance, wind, humdity etc etc AND the physical characteristics of the rifle

However to my mind we can't mix the two up - I don't think I would use MOA to measure the distance of my ''cone of impacts'' from the bull - I would just use inches or cm (occasionally feet and meters :oops:)

I will now look for my tin lid in anticipation of incoming :):)
 
Captain Dave

From one Dave to another, though I prefer the moniker Field Marshall, I need to ask you a direct question. Just what exactly is it you are trying to say?

Three recent threads in this section, nominally three different topics. But I sense an agenda. You said you want a discussion about ethics, well have one directly then instead of fannying around.

If you are after a debate on hunting “ethics” you’ll find a few here willing to take a side and usually that’s to slag off those of us who actually know what they’re doing past 300yds. Some stalwarts of the long game will stick to their guns though. But all good, each to their own, like I said a few days ago I have experienced many different flavours of hunting. To the non-hunter they would seem to be one and the same sport. But they aren’t, each flavour requires its own specific competencies and experience. Step outside your skill level, and as in most aspects of life, you might end up flat on your face in a pileo’shite. It was good to see @CarlW making a sensible statement about hunters judging other hunters, well said Carl.

So just be straight: you’ve stated somewhere that a shot past 150yds is a long ‘un for you in your hunting environment. My initial reaction to that was, well if they are difficult to track, shoot them in the neck and/or get a dog!

Well the business of going longer than 150yds, or whatever range is your limit, is not an ethical issue, its a competency issue. If you can’t, then don’t. If you can’t, but try anyway, that’s an ethical problem. But if you can, and you are confident, then go for it. (FWIW my view is that if the shooter can’t shoot a deer stone dead on the spot out of a blind with a solid rest at 150yds then I’ve got some questions to ask them about their competencies.)

So hunting “ethics” isn’t a question of ethics alone, far from it.

Lets define ethics quickly:
moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity

Lets define competency:
the ability to do something successfully or efficiently

If you don’t have the ability to shoot a deer DRT at greater than 150yds, then don’t try it until you so have the ability. If you are a proven shooter to whatever range, be it proper medium or proper long range, you’ll get no argument from me. Its up to each and every individual to define their limits based on their competencies, and their knowledge of their equipment.

DO define your personal ethics by establishing and maintaining your competencies. Maintenance of competencies is the critical part - calculation, proving your ballistics, practice, practice, practice.

DO NOT use an arbitrary ‘ethical position’ on hunting ranges or shot placement to judge others, on a hunting forum or elsewhere, as it makes zero reference to others’ competencies.

I have very clear max ranges for all my rifle and projectile combinations, with factors based on what the wind is doing. For light framed, thin skinned medium game like goats, fallow and smaller reds, those ranges are proven to deliver requisitie accuracy and proven to kill quickly. For bigger heavier animals like large pigs, mature hinds or heavy stags, another factor is applied. Same result: clean quick killing shots. No one else has the right to tell me squat about what ranges I should be shooting animals at and if they try I’ll explain why.
 
The thing I like to keep in mind is that the task of getting a well-placed bullet into a deer becomes disproportionally harder with increasing range. Likewise it could be argued that longer range also makes any kind of follow-up (if needed), whether a re-stalk or a second shot, disproportionately more difficult.
So, with increasing range we put ourselves in a position where both the shot is harder make correctly and any necessary follow-up is more difficult.

I worry a little than confidence might sometimes be mistaken for competence - particularly where the ability to dope for wind over longer ranges is concerned.
Certainly in my experience of target-rifle shooting over tricky ground, even with wind-flags there's a measure of good fortune involved in a correct judgement - and I'm happier making that kind of call when the worst outcome is a 4.
OK, OK, a 3.
 
Here are the "real world" winning scores in the BDS Highlands Branch Winter Competition at Cawdor a week ago. Admittedly on a range but blowing a hoolie on the day & squinting directly at the sun!

"Highland Branch Winter Shoot 2018
roe silhouette target (no visible aiming point)- five shots @ 200yds

Macarthur Cup (smallest group)
1st Ali M. - 29mm
2nd Andrew Y. - 35mm
3rd Seamus N - 62mm

Hamish Shaw Trophy (highest score ex 50)
1st Ali M - 48 (smaller group)
2nd David A - 48
3rd equal Seamus N, Charlie R, Andrew Y - 45

Ian

Unfortunately the participants may be using some precise features of the target as aiming points (like tip of antler). Just like shooting a tiny group at 1000y with iron sights doesn't mean you could actually see anything useful at the distance.
 
The thing I like to keep in mind is that the task of getting a well-placed bullet into a deer becomes disproportionally harder with increasing range. Likewise it could be argued that longer range also makes any kind of follow-up (if needed), whether a re-stalk or a second shot, disproportionately more difficult.
So, with increasing range we put ourselves in a position where both the shot is harder make correctly and any necessary follow-up is more difficult.

I worry a little than confidence might sometimes be mistaken for competence - particularly where the ability to dope for wind over longer ranges is concerned.
Certainly in my experience of target-rifle shooting over tricky ground, even with wind-flags there's a measure of good fortune involved in a correct judgement - and I'm happier making that kind of call when the worst outcome is a 4.
OK, OK, a 3.

Well said, good fortune can play a major part in the easiest of shots but due to sod's law so can sh#*e luck, all we can do is give it our best effort and the rest is out of our control but i have to say i've seen quite a few people mistake bad fieldcraft,bad safety practices and down right sloppiness for bad luck ?
 
So a rifle that shoots to within 1moa of the poa at 500 yds may result in a group size of around 10 inches at that distance, going by your figures.

Correct, but that would be a 2-MOA barrel, not a 1-MOA barrel.
Where is Muir when he is needed?
 
Don't be fooled into thinking that shooting 3 or 5 round group and not taking POA into account somehow defines the accuracy of your shooter/rifle/ammo combination. Subsequent groups may be, say under 1 MOA, but the POI is wandering.

My favorite example is, go shoot 10, 20 or 30 rounds using same POA and in same conditions. You can pick any 3 or 5 of them and they represent a realistic 3 or 5 shot group. Those picked groups may range from 3 MOA to 0.25MOA...
 
The thing I like to keep in mind is that the task of getting a well-placed bullet into a deer becomes disproportionally harder with increasing range. Likewise it could be argued that longer range also makes any kind of follow-up (if needed), whether a re-stalk or a second shot, disproportionately more difficult.
So, with increasing range we put ourselves in a position where both the shot is harder make correctly and any necessary follow-up is more difficult.

I worry a little than confidence might sometimes be mistaken for competence - particularly where the ability to dope for wind over longer ranges is concerned.
Certainly in my experience of target-rifle shooting over tricky ground, even with wind-flags there's a measure of good fortune involved in a correct judgement - and I'm happier making that kind of call when the worst outcome is a 4.
OK, OK, a 3.

When I read this, I think fair enough, the guy is not likely to be confident enough at a certain range in certain conditions, that’s a good call to know your limits and decide not to take the shot. You need confidence to apply your competence, and vice versa. The over-confident will make mistakes, the overly conservative will remain over-cautious and potentially miss out.

My take on this is there are definite cultural differences in shooting circles, some of which are driven by very deep seated conservative values that go back many years, and may be somewhat irrational. In my experience those afflicted with said values are often highly, highly reluctant to accept that the risk / reward relationship in longer range shooting is just nowhere near as high risk as they think it is. Particularly when it comes to wind. There’s this almost inbuilt assumption that wind makes all longer shots risky. Bollox! I like to go hunting when the wind isn’t blowing! There, problem solved! If its windy in one direction or other and it is bothering me, I don’t take the bloody shot! It’s as if ratcheting up the range automatically and proportionally rachets up the risk. That just isn’t true.

Every shot requires a form of risk assessment, you can make it complicated and use your own risk matrix if you like, I prefer to keep things simple. I can judge wind reasonably well, but I measure it anyway. I can remember the windage calc equation. Remarkable what some actual numbers can do for confidence.

I dunno, maybe there’s an overbearing element of benchrest conservatism at play, an influence of the techy shooting nerds on the imprecise science of shooting animals for meat. I don’t do paper punching for fun outside of my hunting practice, and all my hunting practice is in the environment in which I hunt. Don’t really get on with the benchrest crowd, too anal for me and highly likely to jump up and down at the mere thought of some the stuff we get up to down here. Well, actually they do jump up and down, its a default setting I think.

But what I do find amusing is the knowledge that when we get a visitor from Blighty or wherever, no matter how forthrightly dyed in the wool they are in traditional conservative shooting lore, put them in a good position on a beautiful still day, with a nice fat yearling on the other side of the gully, say 450, 500m, put a nice rifle in their hands, you can tell they want to have a go. Happens every time. There’s a moment of such tangible temptation you can almost taste it. And you know what? Well over half will take the shot without fretting themselves silly, even if its double as far as anything they’ve ever shot before. Of the other half, half again will agonise publicly, and still take the shot, and the remainder will watch me do it without a second thought and then spend the rest of the hunt ****ed off with themselves.

It really isn’t that hard. Try it sometime.
 
Don't be fooled into thinking that shooting 3 or 5 round group and not taking POA into account somehow defines the accuracy of your shooter/rifle/ammo combination. Subsequent groups may be, say under 1 MOA, but the POI is wandering.

My favorite example is, go shoot 10, 20 or 30 rounds using same POA and in same conditions. You can pick any 3 or 5 of them and they represent a realistic 3 or 5 shot group. Those picked groups may range from 3 MOA to 0.25MOA...

This is the physical truth, and it will not be popular or result in much discussion. Most discussion of groups on the internet involves ignoring the fall of perhaps thousands of bullets in favour of 3 hits on a target that satisify the requirements of the shooter. Most "load development" involves placing significance on one load shooting a 1/4 inch 3 shot group while another load shoots a 2 inch 3 shot group when, in truth, both the groups were part of a 3 inch group.

As has been discussed many times before the stalker shoots a group of about 3 inches at 100 yards but you point to another interesting thing about this - relative to the precise point of aim even a tiny group may be located anywhere within, say, the nominal 3 inches. The current trend when measuring group sizes is to subtract all sorts of numbers from the actual measured size to give flattering answers but in truth what should be done is to measure to the furthermost edge of the group from the point of aim and then double this figure to give the group size as that gives the diameter of a circle, centered on the point of aim, which would fully contain the group. As more and more rounds are fired at the target the group will likely grow and at some point the shooter can decide that is the size of group they can shoot. As discussed previously this was, sort of, what the black dot of doom did as unless you could group inside an inch and center the group right on the point of aim you didn't get 3 hits.

If you shoot enough groups then the stats say that some of them will be small. It would actually be possible to calculate the number of groups of a given size you could expect to shoot based upon a given number of shots fired and I was interested to see a similar calculation for shotgun patterns recently when reading the Gough Thomas book on Shotgun Cartridges. He did the calcs for the number of 5 inch gaps in the pattern in a 30 inch circle for a given number of pellets landing within the circle for a normal pattern. If the rifle shooter were to fire, say, 10,000 rounds at a target and we were to draw a circle of, say, 3 inches centered on the point of aim that would contain the majority of shots then stats can predict the number of groups of a given size, the number of gaps of a given size and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
When ever I see a thread on any forum going past 3 pages I read the first post then go to the last page, it usually saves me a lot of time, you should try it:)

I'm no better than any others on here, but what I have learnt over the years, based on my own experience and watching my clients (not touting for business admin, I have stopped taking out clients) when you have found a good rifle/scope combination, a round that you are happy with and it does the job on a deer (not paper) stick with it and practice in the field, prone, sticks, sitting, kneeling, fence posts etc practice, practice and practice some more
I just love it when a new bullet/head (whatever) with some slick advertising/marketing comes out claiming to be the answer to all your requirements, some run out and buy it, spend god knows how much on it in time and money only to find its crap.

Go out, know your own limitations and stick to them, deer shouldn't be used for target practice, they deserve respect, thankfully the bulk of the posters on this forum stick to this.

Just go deer stalking, that's where I'm going later, with my trusty .243 and fixed S&B 6x42, or my 30-06 and fixed S&B 8x56, 100 grain or 180 grain soft points, probably less than 100 yards away, but knowing that if I had to I can shoot out confidently a lot further, because I have practiced, I know my own limitations and I have confidence in my equipment.

TTFN

Richard
 
Back
Top