Accuracy in the field?

#82
It is a bit of an arbitrary convention then?...you could actually swap the two words fairly comfortably. Just depending on which you assign to the rifle and which you assign to the target.... Or which to describe proximity of bullet to bullet and which to proximity of group to bull.

I learn, thank you.

Alan
I'm reading a really interesting book at the moment about the history of Prescision engineering and the author would very much disagree that you can or should interchange the two words as they have different meanings and it's just a lack of understanding or laziness to interchange them. When I'm home I'll dig out the paragraph that deals with the two as if I try to remember it now I'll only make a hash of it.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
#83
He's using the more 'American' bias on use of words, a colloquialism, rather than a literal meaning.
I'm reading a really interesting book at the moment about the history of Prescision engineering and the author would very much disagree that you can or should interchange the two words as they have different meanings and it's just a lack of understanding or laziness to interchange them. When I'm home I'll dig out the paragraph that deals with the two as if I try to remember it now I'll only make a hash of it.
It is an interesting play on words though and not used consistently even within the field of shooting...when we refer to a gunsmith "accurising" a rifle we don't mean he is just twiddling the scope turrets to bring the centre of the group to the bull/POA...We mean he is making the rifle more "precise" by reducing the group size as per Dodgyknees' definition.

Preciserising?

Alan
 
#84
But that's us not using the terms correctly rather than them being interchangeable. The image below isn't from the book I'm reading but shows some of the differences

A simple way for me to understand it is if my powder scales weigh a load that is consistently 40.0 grains that is very precise but if the powder is checked and is actually 35.0 grains then although my scales are precise they aren't accurate.
 

Attachments

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
#86
@nun_hunter ”But that's us not using the terms correctly rather than them being interchangeable.”

Exactly. Precisely my point. A very accurate summation! :).

That chart is interesting and helpful. The key difference in this instance appears to be whether it can be defined by a single or multiple measurement. As per your scales mnemonic.

Alan
 
#89
@caorach and @jthyttin

I’ll talk about it.

This subject is fundamental to hunting field accuracy. It’s accuracy vs precision 101.
Yes, but the point you miss out on is that each of the groups in the diagram you posted may be part of the "normal" group that the rifle and shooter can achieve and in that case your definition (assuming there is such a thing) of an accurate and a precise group all fall within the normal distribution and so are achieved randomly by the shooter/rifle combination - the precise and accurate group is part of the same group as the low precision and low accuracy group. We need to go back to what jthyttin said that if you fire a large number of shots at a target the any three of them could form a 3 shot group and, indeed, any 3 of them could form the next 3 shot group. This makes claims for accuracy, or precision, based on one group completely meaningless as stats concerning the normal distribution can predict how many groups of that size, or how often that degree of precision, can be achieved and there is nothing the shooter can do about it.

The first thing we need to do if we are to discuss accuracy and precision is to move away from the "internet super-sniper" thing where someone posts a small group and claims to be an expert or to have discovered a new reloading technique that changes everything and accept that what they are actually doing is fulfilling the predictions of stats and they can do nothing about it.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
#90
You could say that the rifle can only be precise or not. The accuracy of the rifle is determined by the person shooting it and/or setting up the sights/ammunition.
I thought I had said that!

Okay.... a precise rifle that enables me to accurately place the bullets where I want them to strike.

Alan
 

reloader54

Account Suspended
#92
ffs its like the Stanley Unwin school of rifle shooting here sometimes. one shot,, poa=poi , practice,practice, and keep practising until you can reliably and consistently place a bullet poi exactly where you aim it. if you're not happy with the wind,or any other aspect of doubt, don't shoot, if you cant achieve it at relatively long ranges,keep practising or learn to stalk close as you need to achieve one shot kills, and accept there will inevitably be folks who are more capable than you, along with a few who hopefully fall by the wayside because they will never achieve whats needed, either in accuracy or fieldcraft it's not necessary to shoot a deer 3 times through the same bloody hole! save that for paper punching and gongs ect, all in the guise of practising. try not to overthink every aspect of it, and accept not every hunt will end with a carcass in the larder, but all should be enjoyed. or maybe that should be " in the walky around the woodly with the bang floppy he's down, out with the innards and off to the larder with him,,, deep joy" ;)
 
Last edited:

VSS

Well-Known Member
#93
I was just now doing some zeroing on my neighbours farm. His young son walked down the field to the target with me, took one look at it, and said, with the honesty of youth: "Well, you would hit it if it was a big enough animal. Do you shoot deers?"
That's what you call accuracy in the the field, I suppose....
 

Sheprador1973

Well-Known Member
#94
ffs its like the Stanley Unwin school of rifle shooting here sometimes. one shot,, poa=poi , practice,practice, and keep practising until you can reliably and consistently place a bullet poi exactly where you aim it. if you're not happy with the wind,or any other aspect of doubt, don't shoot, if you cant achieve it at relatively long ranges,keep practising or learn to stalk close as you need to achieve one shot kills, and accept there will inevitably be folks who are more capable than you, along with a few who hopefully fall by the wayside because they will never achieve whats needed, either in accuracy or fieldcraft it's not necessary to shoot a deer 3 times through the same bloody hole! save that for paper punching and gongs ect, all in the guise of practising. try not to overthink every aspect of it, and accept not every hunt will end with a carcass in the larder, but all should be enjoyed. or maybe that should be " in the walky around the woodly with the bang floppy he's down, out with the innards and off to the larder with him,,, deep joy" ;)
A fair point well made RL54. I have to hold my hands up...Ive never managed a 5 shot sub-MOA group on a deer...the buggers always run off!
 

Sheprador1973

Well-Known Member
#95
Not qualified or interested enough to tell the difference between accuracy and precision tbh...to me they are essentially the same thing, regardless of definition.

Would it be fair to sum this up as such?:

1) Shoot as accuracy as you can at the particular species, range and in the conditions you're most likely to encounter (and if in doubt, don't shoot)
2) Make sure your gear is checked and well looked after and is up to the job.
3) Practice whenever possible to lessen the likelihood of injuring the target.

Yet to do the DSC1 shooting test but Ive read they make it quite clear regarding the acceptable accuracy for a heart/lung shot deer (4" circle I believe?). Have had others suggest that a 6" group at the required range is good enough for a solid kill if in the heart/double lung area. Means if I have to shoot a deer where I have permission at 50 yards say, I need to be able to consistently shoot 12 MOA groups (depending upon who you ask about the definition of MOA). Think I can manage that... but will try to do much better!

Must admit, Im not a fan of the idea of blowing pigeons and rabbits into a million pieces with a centrefire in the name of 'long range varminting'. Seems to me a waste of ammo, meat and is not particularly sporting IMHO. But if that your cup of tea...crack on. If the landowner doesn't object you're free to do so I guess no problem. ATB :)
 
Last edited:

captdavid

Well-Known Member
#96
My guns are original, early '50s, commercial, FN Mauser 98s. one in 7x57 and one 30-06. they both shoot groups around 1.25" @ 100yds. This is an average of over 20 3 and 5 shot groups. I first established a good load. Now. every time I go, I record my group size. If I call a flyer, or if there is an unusually large group, I will discard it, but it is rare. It happens maybe 10% of the time. I blame it on my shooting or reloading skills or components. What this tells me, is that my guns are more accurate than my shooting. capt david
 
#97
Well, whilst you still discuss/argue amongst yourselves this little stag didn't worry about POI etc
I bet I wished I would have stayed at home tapping away, but that's not me, .243 (that is correct you aren't seeing things)
175 yards off sticks, it ran 30 yards, carry on!
IMG_20181119_165912386.jpg
 

dodgyknees

Well-Known Member
#99
Way too complicated for me @caorach... when debating the definition of accuracy vs precision and what it means to me in the field, simplicity wins. When I develop a load, I keep going until it shoots precisely. When I am field checking my rifle, I adjust my scope until the rifle shoots the bullet accurately, repeatably, as well. Usually achieved in 3-4 shots, one of the beauties of using mil turrets and metric targets. Job done. There’s no super sniper involved, just a good rifle with a well matched load and good technique. The stats I understand, but its over analyzing. You only need one shot to go where you want it. When I miss, I can almost always work out why by replaying what I did in my mind, and the fault will likely have been bad technique.

The blokes who have been mentioning the black dot of doom are 100% correct - shooting off hand is a totally different kettle of fish and all the stats talk is basically meaningless. Most of my kills are off a bipod, prone, but when I shoot off hand I need to be very very careful and from the second I start to raise my rifle I must talk myself through what I’m doing.

I’ve seen way more bad outcomes from close range, off hand snap shots, than shots taken prone, off a rest, with time on your side. Way more.
 

Top