cal30_sniper
Member
I saved the code. If you want me to run it with a different MOA shooter and gun, just shoot me a PM. I'll send you the results.
Legit 1" groups
- Thread starter ford8nr
- Start date
- Status
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,659
Of course
The hardest things for me at 66 are getting into prone and then getting back up.
Next is seeing the front sight post consistently clearly. Smaller apertures help some.
The gun, though, from the bench, especially if it is wearing a scope is a solid MOA shooter with this load. Just shows the difference that changing position, sights and old eyes can make.
Pete
No, I definitely am not. The next ten shots scored a ninety eight with much larger group.
The hardest things for me at 66 are getting into prone and then getting back up.
Next is seeing the front sight post consistently clearly. Smaller apertures help some.
The gun, though, from the bench, especially if it is wearing a scope is a solid MOA shooter with this load. Just shows the difference that changing position, sights and old eyes can make.
Pete
Last edited:
essayons21
Member
Heh...
Calipers and a dime
I shoot off a front bipod and a rear sand sock, usually prone. The above target was a OCW development. I think the largest 5 shot group is about 1 MOA. I usually just measure from the two furthest outside points and leave it at that. I guess I could then subtract .308 or whatever the diameter of the bullet and that would be the more accurate group size, but people tend to call BS when you say you shoot consistent .5 MOA 5-shot groups and arguing over that sort of thing is a waste of time.
I have started loading 25 rounds for load development, broken into 6 four shot groups, with one cold bore/sighting shot. I think that is a good test of the accuracy, with minimum number of expensive components used for load development.
cal30_sniper
Member
Now I've gone way overboard...
Here's the percentage of times a 1MOA gun will beat a 2MOA gun, plotted by actual shooter MOA capability, as well as what percent of the time that they will tie. Interesting stuff...
EDIT: Since the original question was about points, here is the average score and x-count for the two guns with respect to Shooter MOA. In short, this graph shows, that unless you can shoot better than 0.5MOA offhand at 200 yards, a 2 MOA rifle will negatively impact your performance compared to what you could do with a 1MOA rifle.
Edit #2, I modified the algorithm so that the MOA impact from the gun could be either negative or positve, still based on a random number from -1/2MOA to 1/2MOA of the rifle. This is due to the fact that a shot is just as likely to fall closer to the bullseye than further away due to random distribution of the firearms group. This tightens up scores, but still gives a significant edge to the shooter with a 1MOA gun, unless you can shoot sub 1/2MOA standing, at which point you will tie, or you shoot >4MOA standing, at which point its a wash. The edited plots are shown above.
Here's the percentage of times a 1MOA gun will beat a 2MOA gun, plotted by actual shooter MOA capability, as well as what percent of the time that they will tie. Interesting stuff...
EDIT: Since the original question was about points, here is the average score and x-count for the two guns with respect to Shooter MOA. In short, this graph shows, that unless you can shoot better than 0.5MOA offhand at 200 yards, a 2 MOA rifle will negatively impact your performance compared to what you could do with a 1MOA rifle.
Edit #2, I modified the algorithm so that the MOA impact from the gun could be either negative or positve, still based on a random number from -1/2MOA to 1/2MOA of the rifle. This is due to the fact that a shot is just as likely to fall closer to the bullseye than further away due to random distribution of the firearms group. This tightens up scores, but still gives a significant edge to the shooter with a 1MOA gun, unless you can shoot sub 1/2MOA standing, at which point you will tie, or you shoot >4MOA standing, at which point its a wash. The edited plots are shown above.
Last edited:
allaroundhunter
Member
I wouldn't either, I'm just trying to say that I do not need an MOA or sub-MOA gun to hunt. I'm like you, OCD to an extent, but for my typical hunts, a 2 MOA rifle is all that I would ever need.
Thankfully my least accurate rifle is about a 1.5 MOA gun so I'm good to go.
When I answered this post I was answering in regards to a target/"tactical" rifle. If I were to answer with a hunting rifle in mind my answers would be different.
Sent from my HTC One X
50% is just a convenient point in the distribution that is easy to find. If you have a 5 shot group, discard two best shots and two worst shots, measure the distance between the remaining one and the center of the target.
If you make some reasonable assumption about the distribution (normal distribution is probably a good start), you can then find R75, R95, R99 and so on.
If I shoot a five-shot group, measure it, and it's larger than the group someone else posted in this thread, I feel bad. If I measure R50 then all I can compare it to is my own result from last time, and I can feel good.
I'm only counting fliers that I called, so it does not matter much. With small number of shots it's always tempting to say "this is a flier", but if I continue to shoot chances are some shots will fill that empty space between the "flier" and center of target.
dubbleA
Member
Kachok said:
There's a difference in shooting a single lone group and claiming that your particular rifle is a ____moa shooter and shooting several groups and averaging all of them together.
Try shooting 5 or more three round groups in a single session and without discarding any of them and get an average. It's still not perfect but that would be a bit more accurate than using the smallest group and throwing out the rest.
This a a load that is being worked up. The group in the center(.558") was 3 rounds I picked up off a bench and shot to get a rough zero. These were not counted. Started at the lower left square and then proceeded to the right then up and to the left. There were .3gr powder increments between the loads/groups. Again the lower left group is the minimum charge weight and the upper left group is the max, not that is makes a difference but to give an idea what I was doing.
The best single group is .078" but when we average the 6 groups together we get .249". Is this rifle a 1/12moa or 1/4moa shooter. The answer is neither. Last week I shot the load that grouped the smallest(.078") at 300 and 600 yards and got .3moa and .5moa groups respectively. The only accuracy claim I'll make is to me it's a 1moa shooter when I do my part.
I have no doubt that some factory Tikkas can shoot, so can some Winchesters, Rugers, Savages, Remingtons and so on. I have been in this for a long time and have never witnessed a factory rifle that will shoot 1/12moa or 1/8moa groups consistantly on any given day. That's just me though, your mileage may vary.
Kachok
Member
I have only shot four groups with that load, so I cannot say it is a consistent anything, but the worst of the groups was around .6" if I remember correctly, and I could chalk that up to my nerve damage (bad electrical accident year ago), any way you look at it that is a real shooter for a 6lbs rifle, the best part is that is by far the least bullet picky rifle I have ever shot, hollow point, flat base, boat tail, soft point, poly tips in 120-140 gr all shoot great with the same or very similar loads, it is the only rifle I have ever owned that does that, the ONLY bullet that I have had trouble with is the ultra long 140gr VLD, cannot get those things under 2" with my pet loads, might try H1000.
cal30_sniper
Member
Your methodology makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are explaining it poorly, but it appears to me that you are "cherry picking" the best 50% of your shots and then claiming that is your group. You say that you're discarding your two best shots out of a 5 round group, but any 3 or 5-round group discards the best two shots. You also discard all the other "best" shots when shooting for groups, no matter what the size. A group is the distance between the two furthest apart shots, i.e., the worst two.
If you throw out the worst 50% of your shots, you are pretty much eliminating shooter error and ammunition inconsistencies from impacting your group size. I don't know about you, but those are the things I WANT to know about usually when working with group sizes.
I also don't get how R50 would be any better or worse for comparison than MOA groups. You shoot a group, measure it's size, and compare it to what you've done before. That's how you see if your improving. However, if you're throwing out your worst shots every time, you can't really judge whether you're improving or not.
I've got a lot of rifles that pile 2 or 3 rounds into nice 1/2MOA groups but throw one out to 1 or 1.5 inches consistently in every group. I wouldn't call them 1/2MOA rifle.
I kind of understand if you're using some kind of probability density function based on the max group size, but it still doesn't really make sense to me. Why substitute statistics for actual measurements?
I think you aren't seeing eye to eye on "groups" vs. "statistical deviation."
E.g. I can shoot 200 rounds at a target. If 90% of those rounds hit within a 1" circle, then 90% of the time I'm shooting 1MOA. But if one round (due to bad bullet, sneeze, gust of wind) lands out 12" to the right, my group size is over a foot.
Statistical analysis is simply an analysis of "what percent of the time will my shot hit within a given size zone".
MOST firearms (and shooters) can consistently hit small groups but ALL will occasionally have a flier for whatever reason. No one can consistently, 100% of the time, shoot 1MOA groups. No ammunition (projectiles) will be 100% free of defects/voids/unbalanced jackets.
If you THINK you can do so, 100% of the time, try shooting on a day where it isn't 70 degrees, sunny, and with only trace winds.
Try going out when it's raining or snowing, where winds are gusting between 5-25mph and changing direction over a 60degree arc. Thunderstorms separate the men from the boys.
E.g. I can shoot 200 rounds at a target. If 90% of those rounds hit within a 1" circle, then 90% of the time I'm shooting 1MOA. But if one round (due to bad bullet, sneeze, gust of wind) lands out 12" to the right, my group size is over a foot.
Statistical analysis is simply an analysis of "what percent of the time will my shot hit within a given size zone".
MOST firearms (and shooters) can consistently hit small groups but ALL will occasionally have a flier for whatever reason. No one can consistently, 100% of the time, shoot 1MOA groups. No ammunition (projectiles) will be 100% free of defects/voids/unbalanced jackets.
If you THINK you can do so, 100% of the time, try shooting on a day where it isn't 70 degrees, sunny, and with only trace winds.
Try going out when it's raining or snowing, where winds are gusting between 5-25mph and changing direction over a 60degree arc. Thunderstorms separate the men from the boys.
cal30_sniper
Member
Oh, I gotcha on that one Trent. Called fliers are very useful when the shooter knows they messed up. I have to account for that quite frequently at the public range. It's amazing what the concussion from somebody letting loose a belted mag in the lane next to you can do to your carefully timed trigger squeeze at the end of a 5-shot string, haha.
I can understand the 99%, or even 95% deviation thing. There are going to be those rounds that just happen, although with truly accurate rifles and shooters, they are very rare, hence the 99 or 95%.
What I don't see is the 50% deviation. That makes no sense to me. I want to know where 99% or 95% of my shots are going to land, not 50%. If a shooter can't keep more than 50% of their shots in a decent group, they need a lot more practice. If a rifle can't do it, it might be time to either accept that the rifle is not for shooting groups, or let the rifle go.
I'll be honest, I don't shoot in rain, sleet, or snow, nor have I ever had to hunt under those conditions either. I grew up in West Texas, where any of those things are a once in a blue moon occurrence. If its windy outside, I might go shooting or hunting, but I'm not going to be out trying to work up loads or group a rifle. That's pretty much throwing ammo away, and the stocks just aren't around for me to be doing that kind of stuff. Shooting and learning to read the wind is one thing, trying to develop loads or benchmark a rifle in the wind is something completely different.
I can understand the 99%, or even 95% deviation thing. There are going to be those rounds that just happen, although with truly accurate rifles and shooters, they are very rare, hence the 99 or 95%.
What I don't see is the 50% deviation. That makes no sense to me. I want to know where 99% or 95% of my shots are going to land, not 50%. If a shooter can't keep more than 50% of their shots in a decent group, they need a lot more practice. If a rifle can't do it, it might be time to either accept that the rifle is not for shooting groups, or let the rifle go.
I'll be honest, I don't shoot in rain, sleet, or snow, nor have I ever had to hunt under those conditions either. I grew up in West Texas, where any of those things are a once in a blue moon occurrence. If its windy outside, I might go shooting or hunting, but I'm not going to be out trying to work up loads or group a rifle. That's pretty much throwing ammo away, and the stocks just aren't around for me to be doing that kind of stuff.
Shooting and learning to read the wind is one thing, trying to develop loads or benchmark a rifle in the wind is something completely different.I'm finding median distance between target and bullet holes. For example, "R50 of 1 inch" means that half the shots land 1 inch or closer to center of target.
This is equivalent to saying that if you shoot at a target 2 inches in diameter, you'll be hitting it roughly half the time.
Note that group size does not have similar interpretation, it does not tell you much about hit probability.
With R50, "best" and "worst" are relative to target center. If you have a 1 inch group 1 foot away from the center of the target, R50 is 1 foot.
Last edited:
The advantage of 50th percentile is that it's easy to measure. To measure 99th percentile directly you need to fire hundreds of shots.
But they are related - if 50th percentile goes up, chances are so does the 99th. For any distribution there will be a factor you can use to convert one to the other.
Hangingrock
Member
It would have been a wonderful (10) shot group except for (3). To tell you honest I can’t say the 1963 Match ammunition is that good and the shooter of the 40X is that consistent on a regular basis. Group size is what it is and varies with conditions plus the shooter has good and bad days.
Does it really matter?
I do find a single 3 shot group as the basis of a claim pretty amusing, though, I must admit...and if somebody tells me a gun, or they, or they + a gun, are X MOA, those are the details I want to know.
It's like anything else in life. People get stuck on the numbers and lose out on the details and the things that would seem to really matter.
I lift weights. Guys get so hung up on getting the biggest number they can for a particular lift, it's ridiculous. I just ask to see the video of the lift.
People who target shoot with rifles get hung up on MOA and group size. If I really care/want to know how impressive something about it is, I want to know all kinds of things, like what the OP is getting at.
People get way too obsessed over what kind of accuracy claim they can make
I do find a single 3 shot group as the basis of a claim pretty amusing, though, I must admit...and if somebody tells me a gun, or they, or they + a gun, are X MOA, those are the details I want to know.
It's like anything else in life. People get stuck on the numbers and lose out on the details and the things that would seem to really matter.
I lift weights. Guys get so hung up on getting the biggest number they can for a particular lift, it's ridiculous. I just ask to see the video of the lift.
People who target shoot with rifles get hung up on MOA and group size. If I really care/want to know how impressive something about it is, I want to know all kinds of things, like what the OP is getting at.
People get way too obsessed over what kind of accuracy claim they can make
Yup. The last group I shot out of the PKM was 250 round belt semi auto at 300 yards and there was nothing left of the 6" center of the target; I could stick my foot clean through it.
At least I know I got my zero down. And, 2 MOA out of a belt gun REALLY shows how good the Russian design is. I've seen guys with tricked out AR's that couldn't hold that together.
Screw minute of angle. Minute of bad guy is where it's at!!
At least I know I got my zero down. And, 2 MOA out of a belt gun REALLY shows how good the Russian design is. I've seen guys with tricked out AR's that couldn't hold that together.
Screw minute of angle. Minute of bad guy is where it's at!!
jerkface11
Member
2MOA from a PKM???? Why bother with anything else at that point.
jerkface-
I'm not even joking, man. When I shot my first 10 rounds at 100 yards and looked through the spotting scope I couldn't believe my eyes. Set it up on the tripod, bag it, use the elevation adjust / traverse levers to get it honed in, lock it down.
What I saw was a 1.5" 10 shot group. I even walked out to the target to confirm. Only problem was it was 3" to the right. So I grabbed my AK front sight drift adjustment tool out of my bag, guess what, it fit! Crank... don't move.. crap. Get a bar for leverage.. crank... BANG! Whisky Tango Foxtrot... I thought I broke my tool.
Nope, was just the front sight post finally moving.
Anyway I stopped right there because I figured it's probably moved WAY past where I wanted it to.
Loaded a fresh belt, put another 10 rounds out. ALL of them went through the X ring.
I couldn't believe it. I have owned BOLT guns that don't shoot that good! So the rest of the day I played at 200 & 300 yards. The sight was tuned for 200 & 300 meters, which was close enough for the targets at 200 & 300 yards (a shade high at 200, a little more at 300). Evidently it was calibrated for light ball because it was dead on.
It's almost cheating in that tripod.
Lesson learned; if you are ever down range from a tripod mounted hostile PKM, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. Those rifles are scary accurate.
I'm not even joking, man. When I shot my first 10 rounds at 100 yards and looked through the spotting scope I couldn't believe my eyes. Set it up on the tripod, bag it, use the elevation adjust / traverse levers to get it honed in, lock it down.
What I saw was a 1.5" 10 shot group. I even walked out to the target to confirm. Only problem was it was 3" to the right. So I grabbed my AK front sight drift adjustment tool out of my bag, guess what, it fit! Crank... don't move.. crap. Get a bar for leverage.. crank... BANG! Whisky Tango Foxtrot... I thought I broke my tool.
Nope, was just the front sight post finally moving.
Anyway I stopped right there because I figured it's probably moved WAY past where I wanted it to.
Loaded a fresh belt, put another 10 rounds out. ALL of them went through the X ring.
I couldn't believe it. I have owned BOLT guns that don't shoot that good! So the rest of the day I played at 200 & 300 yards. The sight was tuned for 200 & 300 meters, which was close enough for the targets at 200 & 300 yards (a shade high at 200, a little more at 300). Evidently it was calibrated for light ball because it was dead on.
It's almost cheating in that tripod.
Lesson learned; if you are ever down range from a tripod mounted hostile PKM, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. Those rifles are scary accurate.
Andrew Leigh
Member
I agree with a previous poster, more rifles are MOA than shooters.
Friend is on the range with factory ammo in his 30-06 and cannot get under 1.5MOA @ 100m. There happens to be a National junior champ on the range on the day so friend asks the youngster to please have three shots in the belief that the youngster will confirm his opinion that either the rifle or the ammo is poor.
Youngster takes only three shots on a rifle he has never used and gets a very, very tight clover leaf. Friend now demoralised as he has realised that it is the mug behind the scope that was the problem all along.
Both my CZ's (6.5 and 30-06) are sub MOA but to get there has required bedding and handloading and practice. I often mess up groups due to a lack of concentration, poor shot control etc. and induce flyers. I do not believe in "flyers" and believe that flyers are the shooters excuse for a bad shot. We often BS ourselves when on the range, regularly see people discount "flyers" to get to a decent group size. ALL my groups include any so called "flyers". Flyers are my personal measure of my technique, or lack of it.
Although one can theoretically extrapolate a group size from 50m to 100m the truth is that in the practice this is not always true as measurement error will also extrapolate as well. It is more meaningful to do the reverse, set your target at 200 or 300m/yds and then extrapolate backwards.
It is also useful to triangulate shots in a group as this will also tell you something about the load.
Examining shot dispersion is also very meaningful. Was on the range last Saturday. Shot a 1.2MOA 5 group at 100m, the group was split into three shot and then 2 shot a possible indication of the action moving in the stock. Then shot a 5 shot 1.5MOA group which was horizontal moving from right to left. This could only be two things, rifle definitely loose in stock or the forearm moving on the front rest (unlikely due to rest shape).
Flipped the rifle over and tightened the action screws which were loose (the rifle is new and still settling in). Had three rounds left and shot a traingular group of 0.58MOA.
The point of the whole diatribe is simply that we need to contol the variables that we can which are the shooter, the rifle, the rest and the load. Any one of these will impact on the group size but we need to know which one is the culprit as this will stop us from chasing down blind alleys.
Friend is on the range with factory ammo in his 30-06 and cannot get under 1.5MOA @ 100m. There happens to be a National junior champ on the range on the day so friend asks the youngster to please have three shots in the belief that the youngster will confirm his opinion that either the rifle or the ammo is poor.
Youngster takes only three shots on a rifle he has never used and gets a very, very tight clover leaf. Friend now demoralised as he has realised that it is the mug behind the scope that was the problem all along.
Both my CZ's (6.5 and 30-06) are sub MOA but to get there has required bedding and handloading and practice. I often mess up groups due to a lack of concentration, poor shot control etc. and induce flyers. I do not believe in "flyers" and believe that flyers are the shooters excuse for a bad shot. We often BS ourselves when on the range, regularly see people discount "flyers" to get to a decent group size. ALL my groups include any so called "flyers". Flyers are my personal measure of my technique, or lack of it.
Although one can theoretically extrapolate a group size from 50m to 100m the truth is that in the practice this is not always true as measurement error will also extrapolate as well. It is more meaningful to do the reverse, set your target at 200 or 300m/yds and then extrapolate backwards.
It is also useful to triangulate shots in a group as this will also tell you something about the load.
Examining shot dispersion is also very meaningful. Was on the range last Saturday. Shot a 1.2MOA 5 group at 100m, the group was split into three shot and then 2 shot a possible indication of the action moving in the stock. Then shot a 5 shot 1.5MOA group which was horizontal moving from right to left. This could only be two things, rifle definitely loose in stock or the forearm moving on the front rest (unlikely due to rest shape).
Flipped the rifle over and tightened the action screws which were loose (the rifle is new and still settling in). Had three rounds left and shot a traingular group of 0.58MOA.
The point of the whole diatribe is simply that we need to contol the variables that we can which are the shooter, the rifle, the rest and the load. Any one of these will impact on the group size but we need to know which one is the culprit as this will stop us from chasing down blind alleys.
Last edited:
Still Shooting
Member
What's Important?
I am primarily a hunter, but do much more shooting on the range than at game. I shoot 5 shot groups, because I believe that it takes 5 to know if the rifle is repeatable in its performance. I have several rifles, and have worked on 2 of the 4 that are used most often for hunting - my Ruger 77 tang safety .257 Roberts (Timney trigger and action bedding work), my wife's Ruger 77 ultralight .243 win. (Timney and forend bedding), the M94 Swede I inherited from my granddad (sporterized in the 1950's to a carbine), and my Ruger 77 Mk II .270 win.
My goal is to find the most accurate loads for each rifle, and know that if I miss that "one shot for the whole season," I can kick myself and not blame the firearm. I typically test loads at 100yds. with multiple groups on different days, shooting off of a front bag and using either a rear bag or my left fist. My best loads for those rifles are now consistently doing 0.6 moa (or a little better) when fired as above.
The Ruger ultralight needs about 2 minutes between shots after the first 3 rounds (barrel is very thin). I try to shoot on days when the wind is near calm for load development.
I shoot scopes on all, because at age 67 my eyes are too poor (nearsighted to start with, now old and have focus problems with irons).
I know the rifles will probably shoot a little better than I can, but I won't extrapolate better results than "one ragged hole at 100 yards." And each rifle has ONE load it shoots that well. That's the load I use for hunting.
Interestingly, the best loads for the .243 and the Roberts are both Nosler ballistic tips. Same weight Nosler partitions group nearly as well, but in both rifles POI for the partitions is about 3/4" right and 1/2" higher than the ballistic tips at 100yds.
I am primarily a hunter, but do much more shooting on the range than at game. I shoot 5 shot groups, because I believe that it takes 5 to know if the rifle is repeatable in its performance. I have several rifles, and have worked on 2 of the 4 that are used most often for hunting - my Ruger 77 tang safety .257 Roberts (Timney trigger and action bedding work), my wife's Ruger 77 ultralight .243 win. (Timney and forend bedding), the M94 Swede I inherited from my granddad (sporterized in the 1950's to a carbine), and my Ruger 77 Mk II .270 win.
My goal is to find the most accurate loads for each rifle, and know that if I miss that "one shot for the whole season," I can kick myself and not blame the firearm. I typically test loads at 100yds. with multiple groups on different days, shooting off of a front bag and using either a rear bag or my left fist. My best loads for those rifles are now consistently doing 0.6 moa (or a little better) when fired as above.
The Ruger ultralight needs about 2 minutes between shots after the first 3 rounds (barrel is very thin). I try to shoot on days when the wind is near calm for load development.
I shoot scopes on all, because at age 67 my eyes are too poor (nearsighted to start with, now old and have focus problems with irons).
I know the rifles will probably shoot a little better than I can, but I won't extrapolate better results than "one ragged hole at 100 yards." And each rifle has ONE load it shoots that well. That's the load I use for hunting.
Interestingly, the best loads for the .243 and the Roberts are both Nosler ballistic tips. Same weight Nosler partitions group nearly as well, but in both rifles POI for the partitions is about 3/4" right and 1/2" higher than the ballistic tips at 100yds.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I've always figured that a five-shot group or three is enough of a test of a rifle's capability. If need be, tweak the rifle and meddle with loads until the five-shot groups bring satisfaction.
After that, there should be no further issue with the reliability for tight groups.
Keep in mind that I'm much more of a hunter than a target shooter.
So, if I meddle around with a new bullet or powder, a three-shot group will tell me as much as is necessary for me to hit a target in reliable fashion. Prairie dog, coyote or Bambi.
En passant, a called flyer is merely an acknowledgement of one's messing up and is no reflection on the capability of the rifle. You messed up and you knew it before you even saw the stray hit on the target. No big deal.
After that, there should be no further issue with the reliability for tight groups.
Keep in mind that I'm much more of a hunter than a target shooter.
So, if I meddle around with a new bullet or powder, a three-shot group will tell me as much as is necessary for me to hit a target in reliable fashion. Prairie dog, coyote or Bambi.
En passant, a called flyer is merely an acknowledgement of one's messing up and is no reflection on the capability of the rifle. You messed up and you knew it before you even saw the stray hit on the target. No big deal.
cal30_sniper said:
Just chiming in to point out a common erroneous assumption - that the inaccuracy of the rifle and shooter are simply additive. They aren't. Final MOA is the Root Mean Square of the rifle and shooter. A 3.5MOA shooter with a 1MOA rifle will yield (on average) 7.3" (not 9") groups at 200 yards. With a 2MOA rifle, the groups open to 8", not 11".
I'm curious to see what your simulation reveals once it's fixed.
I always think about this when people say a firearm is "more accurate than they are"
cal30_sniper
Member
For a 3.5 MOA shooter, with a 1MOA rifle, the bullet can land anywhere within a 4.5MOA circle. Yes, most of the shots won't be that far out due to the probability function distribution, but the bullet can land up to that outermost ring. The chances of two extreme spread shots in a row aren't the most common out there, but if you shoot enough rounds, it will happen. (this is also the reason that 3-shot groups aren't very good for accurately judging a rifles accuracy. 3 shots have a very poor chance of catching the rifles worst behavior more than once). That's why I left it to a random number generator. The first random number represents how far away from the bullseye the shooter throws the shot. The second number represents how far away from the shooters actual POA the rifle throws the shot. A PDF distribution for the rifle accuracy would be better, as some of the shots will fall in a range of degrees not in a radial line between the bullseye and the shooters POA, but that's not going to change the final result. The more accurate rifle either wins or ties, no matter how terrible of a shot you are. That's because the less accurate rifle is going to drop some shots further out than the more accurate rifle. Always.
- Status
