Yew Tree 6.5mm 112gr SUCCESS!

[bbrc]

thats not how you measure a group mate

So what is the correct way to measure a group in your opinion?

 

[Loler UK]

thats not how you measure a group mate

Which method do you prefer?

 

[Yew Tree Fieldsports]

Centre to centre. All it is is a benchmark to compare accuracy, I'm not competing!

It’s also the only sensible measure as it takes bullet diameter out of the equation.

 

[breakout 103]

Which method do you prefer?

here you go mate I think this one explains things well https://rifleshooter.com/2016/08/reloading-101-measuring-group-size-and-converting-to-moa/

 

[Loler UK]

here you go mate I think this one explains things well Reloading 101: Measuring group size and converting to MOA

So, considering we're talking about grouping of lead free hunting ammunition you'd favour a smaller diameter bullet with a worse c2c grouping than a equal or marginally better larger diameter bullet?

So if someone places a marginal shot and say, clip the lower brisket of a deer your tighter 6mm grouping leaves an injured mobile deer where as a 9.3mm bullet would leave a significantly larger wound tract

I've always measured as Yew tree states, Outside edge to outside edge minus the bullet diameter giving you a true c2c figure. Some bullets rely on that central section to initiate effective expansion, that aside id propose that the effective grouping of a hunting round might actually be fairer to measure inside edge to inside edge over outside to outside.

I'll likely stick to my way, it allows me to compare group sizes with people all over the world in a common language regardless of bullet diameter and as it's how the courts would define an accuracy guarantee.

 

[breakout 103]

So, considering we're talking about grouping of lead free hunting ammunition you'd favour a smaller diameter bullet with a worse c2c grouping than a equal or marginally better larger diameter bullet?

So if someone places a marginal shot and say, clip the lower brisket of a deer your tighter 6mm grouping leaves an injured mobile deer where as a 9.3mm bullet would leave a significantly larger wound tract

I've always measured as Yew tree states, Outside edge to outside edge minus the bullet diameter giving you a true c2c figure. Some bullets rely on that central section to initiate effective expansion, that aside id propose that the effective grouping of a hunting round might actually be fairer to measure inside edge to inside edge over outside to outside.

I'll likely stick to my way, it allows me to compare group sizes with people all over the world in a common language regardless of bullet diameter and as it's how the courts would define an accuracy guarantee.

you obviuosly havnt read the whole article LOL especially the pasrt where it states "measure the furthest outer egde then subtract bully dia" isnt that what you are doing LOL

 

[takbok]

you obviuosly havnt read the whole article LOL especially the pasrt where it states "measure the furthest outer egde then subtract bully dia" isnt that what you are doing LOL

Most people measure groups centre to centre, doesn't really matter how one goes about it. Nothing hard to understand about a 4mm group, other than the fact that it's difficult to achieve for most people.

 

[Acm]

However you spin it it’s a ****ing good group.

LOL

 

[Acm]

you obviuosly havnt read the whole article LOL especially the pasrt where it states "measure the furthest outer egde then subtract bully dia" isnt that what you are doing LOL

LOL

 

[Loler UK]

you obviuosly havnt read the whole article LOL especially the pasrt where it states "measure the furthest outer egde then subtract bully dia" isnt that what you are doing LOL

you obviuosly havnt read the whole article LOL especially the pasrt where it states "measure the furthest outer egde then subtract bully dia" isnt that what you are doing LOL

So your while post criticising the op for how they measure their groups CTC was essentially you saying you should measure them CTC? Got it. I'd assumed it was you that'd misread the article but actually you were arguing and criticising over absolutely nothing. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[25 Sharps]

Your results on paper and terminal performance mirror mine, except I'm using RL17 (3158fps). I've found the best seating depth in my rifle to be a 55thou jump. CBTO of my 130gr AB and 140SST's. are 5thou either side of the YT 112gr load.
They do like a really clean barrel though.
Good luck.

RS60 and RL17 are the same powder

 

[breakout 103]

So your while post criticising the op for how they measure their groups CTC was essentially you saying you should measure them CTC? Got it. I'd assumed it was you that'd misread the article but actually you were arguing and criticising over absolutely nothing. Thanks for the clarification.

whats ever mate I give up agian you havnt read the the bit wre it states measure the furest points NOT the centre.

 

[Loler UK]

There's always one ay? measuring outside edge to outside edge minus bullet diameter gives a ctc measurement, to quote your article "the size of the group center to center", the exact way the OP measured his group and as YT described 'the br method' and the same method as your article. I see you have an issue that people said measured centre to centre instead of explaining their method more clearly, it's a bit like me saying I weigh 100kg everyone knows exactly what i mean without explaining the physics and finer details of the method of measurement or using the correct terminology.

I love it when people pipe up in lectures to point out that 100kg id not a measurement of force

Don't worry your willy is longer than everyone's bud and I'm sure with your superior knowledge and command of the English language you will be inundated with stalking invites from others on SD

Thanks for schooling us all, every day is a school day after all.

 

[breakout 103]

There's always one ay? measuring outside edge to outside edge minus bullet diameter gives a ctc measurement, to quote your article "the size of the group center to center", the exact way the OP measured his group and as YT described 'the br method' and the same method as your article. I see you have an issue that people said measured centre to centre instead of explaining their method more clearly, it's a bit like me saying I weigh 100kg everyone knows exactly what i mean without explaining the physics and finer details of the method of measurement or using the correct terminology.

I love it when people pipe up in lectures to point out that 100kg id not a measurement of force

Don't worry your willy is longer than everyone's bud and I'm sure with your superior knowledge and command of the English language you will be inundated with stalking invites from others on SD

Thanks for schooling us all, every day is a school day after all.

are you on drugs mate or just in a bad mood as you dont understand how to read an article LOL have a good day now

 

[Treedave]

are you on drugs mate or just in a bad mood as you dont understand how to read an article LOL have a good day now

Still waiting for how you measure a group. The article mentions the methods I’m familiar with and the maths of converting it to a fraction of moa group. I was wondering if you had anything new to add?

 

[breakout 103]

Still waiting for how you measure a group. The article mentions the methods I’m familiar with and the maths of converting it to a fraction of moa group. I was wondering if you had anything new to add?

well not centre to centre thats a fact LOL have a great evening now

 

[Pete6.5]

So we have discussed how to measure a group. Now how many shoots does it take to get a meaningful group? I've always gone with 5 minimum

 

[The deer man]

What the hell is wrong with you all?!
Just a classic example of why shooting in the UK is so damned because even within the shooting fraternity you have this **** and fight each other like a bunch of ****ers!
You're arguing about a couple, at most, mm's. FFS!
Whichever way one measures a group it's a baseline to mark other groups as long as they all use the same measuring regime for comparisons.
This just mirrors all our shooting organisations fighting their little kingdoms and ignoring what we should be, one united front.

 

[Treedave]

What the hell is wrong with you all?!
Just a classic example of why shooting in the UK is so damned because even within the shooting fraternity you have this **** and fight each other like a bunch of ****ers!
You're arguing about a couple, at most, mm's. FFS!
Whichever way one measures a group it's a baseline to mark other groups as long as they all use the same measuring regime for comparisons.
This just mirrors all our shooting organisations fighting their little kingdoms and ignoring what we should be, one united front.

Are you sure they’re shooting organisations and not angling associations?

 

[breakout 103]

What the hell is wrong with you all?!
Just a classic example of why shooting in the UK is so damned because even within the shooting fraternity you have this **** and fight each other like a bunch of ****ers!
You're arguing about a couple, at most, mm's. FFS!
Whichever way one measures a group it's a baseline to mark other groups as long as they all use the same measuring regime for comparisons.
This just mirrors all our shooting organisations fighting their little kingdoms and ignoring what we should be, one united front.

exactly ask a simple question and get some fool trying to be clever,but hey ho thats whats known as a keyboard warrior isnt it or is it just hes on the wrong tome of the month LOL

So we have discussed how to measure a group. Now how many shoots does it take to get a meaningful group? I've always gone with 5 minimum

5