COAL consistency, easier said than done.

[Steve Marshall]

Hey, 1858, what got in your shorts? The OP was asking a valid question and it sounds like he might pay attention to the zero runout, .0001 grain variation TNT guys. And there is nothing wrong with that on the face of it. But way, way back in my day an occasional clean with an M1A at 600 was considered not too shabby. That would be with a 9 pound rifle, iron sights, no shooting jacket and no mat. Let's see... the concept of High Power was to afford shooters the chance to practice and perfect their techniques in case they were called into harm's way. Please educate me as to the purpose of F-Class? Inquiring minds want to know.
An admittedly glib comment about practice being better than reloading analism in reference to High Power shooting should in no way detract from your experiences in F-Class. As to ending up in the bottom 10%? So be it. F-Class holds no allure to me. I never played a sniper on TV and I didn't stay at a Holiday Express last night. Are we clear, or do you want to get in a urinating contest?

 

[Walkalong]

Lets not start pissing on each others choice or level of competition.

I shot Benchrest for a number of years (and miss it) Many outside of BR made fun of the "accuracy freaks". We were seriously anal about case prep etc. If one wasn't, it was hard to be competitive. That is the nature of competition, it continues to evolve and the bar gets higher and higher.

So, whether plinking a 5" group at 50 yards, shooting a .142 at 100 yards, or shooting a 4" group at 1000 yards is what flics our bic, so be it.

That is what different types and classes of competition are for. There are more weekend plinkers than anything else I would think.

 

[Steve Marshall]

Most of the real accuracy/precision gains in the last 60 or 70 years or so can be laid right at the feet of the benchresters. And should you decide to really get serious about accuracy, look no further than "Precision Shooting" magazine. These guys and gals are at the leading edge. They will try almost anything reasonable to get a little more precision. And the best part is that when something works or doesn't work? they tell stories on themselves.
Having said that... but..but he started it, neener,neener.

 

[MCMXI]

Are we clear, or do you want to get in a urinating contest?

I doubt your enlarged prostate would allow for that!

 

[jamesicus]

1858 wrote:

.......... And some people don't either and guess what ... they end up in the bottom 10% week after week. Many things have changed since you folks were shooting High Power 30 to 50 years ago. F-Class happened for one thing and if you think putting all your shots in a 3" circle at 600 yards is simply a case of practice then you're merely demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding of what is required TODAY for precision long-range shooting.

Sounds to me like you've got a sour stomach, son.

 

[armoredman]

Hmm, I am definately outclassed here, at 600 yards I am calling in an air strike.

 

[MCMXI]

Sounds to me like you've got a sour stomach, son.

Yeah, that's it ... thanks dad!!

 

[medalguy]

Remember, old age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.

 

[Steve Marshall]

Ladies and Gentleman of the forum, let me assure you that 1858 does not know, nor will he ever know the state of my prostate.

 

[Walkalong]

D*** glad to know that.

 

[MCMXI]

Ladies and Gentleman of the forum, let me assure you that 1858 does not know, nor will he ever know the state of my prostate.

Now that's funny!! Let's leave it that then.

 

[Steve Marshall]

Now I'm starting to see the light. In another post you talk about some of THOSE guys who talk about cleaning a 600 yard target. 1st, I didn't do it often. 2nd, a clean at 600 was less than a 12" group, with iron sights. I'd say fair dinkum. F-Class guys, when they get a clean, shoot less than 6" groups. Also pretty good. But because F-Class groups can be half the size doesn't make them twice as good. But because you compete in F-Class, F-Class must be better. Not! By that logic, Benchrest Shooters would be the best by far. My 2 MOA groups and your 1 MOA groups pale compared to BR 1/8 MOA groups.
It boils down to different strokes for different folks. How about we leave it at that?
OP's target is good with or without psychological factors, as are yours and as are mine. And slightly off topic, my best group ever, in a match was slightly under 1 MOA. Of course that was only 10 shots with two sighters. This was before I knew about wind, spin drift, coriolis effect and psychological voodoo stuff. It also only scored about 80.

 

[MCMXI]

groups can be half the size doesn't make them twice as good.

One could argue that a group is a measurement of area and if you half the diameter of a group, you reduce the area by a factor of four.

But because you compete in F-Class, F-Class must be better. Not!

What are you talking about? This thread is about what may or may not be needed to achieve a certain statistical probability of success in hitting what you're aiming at and certainly not about which shooting discipline is better. All competitive forms of shooting are difficult and in addition, they're non-linear in terms of difficulty. The closer you get to perfection, the more difficult each little incremental improvement becomes.

For the record, I don't think that F-Class is the pinnacle of all the shooting sports. If I had to pick one I'd pick Zak's steel challenges as being the ultimate shooting discipline for long-range rifle shooting. Sadly, those events are few and far between if for no other reason than the huge amount of real estate required to run them safely. I'd like to invent my own sport aimed at the hunter where competitors use hunting rifles and handguns to engage UKD 1 and 2 MOA targets from 25 yards to 400 yards shooting off-hand, supported, kneeling, sitting, prone etc.