Practical limit to group size wonderment

[bikemutt]

I just finished reading an article in Shooting Times where author Layne Simpson explored the lineup of Sierra Tipped Matchking (and GameKing) bullets.

Layne used a device he refers to as a return-to-battery rest that, from the picture at least, appears to pretty much remove the human element from the accuracy equation. That rest, in conjunction with various actions and rail guns, turned in some very impressive 100 yard groups.

In general it appears from the results that 0.2" 5-shot groups are achievable with various hand loads and calibers using such a setup.

So, is equaling or beating this seemingly invincible machine the holy grail for us group-size-obsessed humans? If not, what's a realistic goal for a mere mortal with a decent factory rifle, dining on it's favorite hand load and fired off a sandbag rest?

 

[Stevenvalleyky]

We will never be able to be as accurate as a device that takes the human equation out of the mix. I imagine that the further the distance, the more human error become more apparent.
If you want to see a goal to shoot for, look at the scores of F class shooters or whatever kind of shooting discipline you enjoy most and shoot for that. Just realize that with a decent factory rifle, you will likely never shoot as small groups as good shooter shooting custom rifles. Truing the action, bolt and barrel mating surfaces will help if you want to go a little deeper than a factory rifle but cant spring for a full on custom gun.
Also, your favorite handload for a certain caliber should really be your "current" favorite handload as all the people I know that are really serious about squeezing the most accuracy possible out of their guns also constantly try new new bullets, powders and powder amounts, always trying to find something more accurate than their current favorite load. BUT, humans are a big equation and we can never be better than something that takes us out of the equation.

 

[hq]

Considering any actual practical purpose it's rather meaningless. Back in the day when I was still into benchrest competition, the top guys shot consistent 0.6-0.8" five shot groups at 600m (660') in heavy rifle class and 0.1-0.2" ten shot groups at 300m (330') in open class. That's the direction you're eventually heading when the smallest possible group size becomes an obsession. Accuracy is a very relative subject and IMO its meaning beyond the shooter's capabilities from a makeshift rest in real world shooting situation is often blown way out of proportion.

Sorry about slight cynicism here. Top shelf rifles and ammo are getting better all the time and accuracy figures from a bench are mostly a great marketing tool for some buyer groups. As a rule of the thumb, refer to manufacturers' claimed accuracy figures. They reflect what's possible in practise on a good day.

 

[Llama Bob]

Benchrest shooting of all sorts has always been more or less of a joke. It's a self-contained world with completely arbitrary objectives of no importance outside that world. Basically, the video game of rifle shooting.

Rifles were made to do two things - shoot at animals, and shoot at people. Accuracy is useful in the real world only in as much as it forwards one of those two goals. Sure, we practice on paper for plenty of perfectly good reasons, but it's not the goal.

In the field other factors like shooter stability, wind and target movement end up being the limits on your hit probability on people and animals. Accuracy below the 1MOA to 0.5MOA range plays almost no part - the effect is just too small compared to the other, big effects to matter much.

If you want to be a better rifleman, swear off the bench for a few years. Shoot everything from field positions, including improvised and ruck field positions whenever possible. Make a habit of shooting on windy days. You'll find you don't miss the bench.

 

[Sam1911]

hq raises a really good point. He calls it cynicism, but it's really more a function of positive skepticism. In other words, being the guy who asks, "...and WHY?"

And there's even several levels to that question. The first and most obvious is, "but can YOU shoot that well, ever? Or in any of the real world situations where you need to?" So this rifle shoots 0.5 MoA and that one shoots 0.3 MOA and this other one shoots 1 MOA. But aside from perching hunched over a bench at a rifle range, so what? Can you shoot anything, ever, well enough to tell the difference, and if not, why are you paying for this?

The next level is "But what are you shooting at and how does this help you do it?" What are you shooting at, and how big is its target zone? How far away is it? Is the rifle's accuracy a limiting factor in your ability to hit it under the conditions and in the positions from which you'll have to shoot? If you're a benchrest guy then you don't have to ask this question. If you're a Steel Safari, practical precision rifle type, maybe it matters a little, because out at 6,7,800+ yards the difference between a 10" group and a 5" group might mean points down. But hunters really don't (or shouldn't) face situations where they're actually held back by the precision limitations of their rifle itself.

Col. Wheelen supposedly said that "only accurate rifles are interesting," but we're getting to the point where the answer is that most production rifles are, then, "interesting" because they've got what it takes to do the job with a significant bit of breathing room.

 

[Art Eatman]

Shooting a rifle, shotgun or handgun can be a way of competing with yourself, same as archery: Can I do better today than I did yesterday? Few other endeavors allow this; they require two or more competitors.

So I don't bum-rap any sort of shooting. Just because I'm predominantly a hunter doesn't make me better (or worse) than a paper-puncher or military sniper.

Different stroke for different folks. Just have respect for those who are good at what they do.

 

[Llama Bob]

Col. Wheelen supposedly said that "only accurate rifles are interesting," but we're getting to the point where the answer is that most production rifles are, then, "interesting" because they've got what it takes to do the job with a significant bit of breathing room.

We've got to be careful here though, because it's easy to confuse accuracy and precision. In the current era of the sub-MOA barrel and action in a junk stock with no bedding, it's easy to have a gun with sub-MOA precision that shifts POI 5 MOA when you change position.

 

[Nature Boy]

Shooting a rifle, shotgun or handgun can be a way of competing with yourself, same as archery: Can I do better today than I did yesterday? Few other endeavors allow this; they require two or more competitors.

So I don't bum-rap any sort of shooting. Just because I'm predominantly a hunter doesn't make me better (or worse) than a paper-puncher or military sniper.

Different stroke for different folks. Just have respect for those who are good at what they do.

My sentiments align with Art's

I'm always trying to learn. I'm not shooting for money or trophies. It's a hobby and I get satisfaction and enjoyment from the improvement. I measure that by the consistency, accuracy and precision of my down range results. I hunt as well so it's also rewarding to develop a load, prove it at the range then take it to the field and have it perform as planned.

 

[otisrush]

So, is equaling or beating this seemingly invincible machine the holy grail for us group-size-obsessed humans? If not, what's a realistic goal for a mere mortal with a decent factory rifle, dining on it's favorite hand load and fired off a sandbag rest?

I'm sort of with the others from the standpoint of "It depends on one's objectives." If someone's goal is to focus on the "machine" (the gun and the handloads) then the device very well might be holy grail to help that person achieve their objective: Create a gun/ammo that performs to that amazing level.

In *my* case I like shooting...and I like handloading. I value trying to improve my personal proficiency. To that end, when I test loads, I use a rear bag so as to reduce as much as practical the human component. But once I have a load that I know performs well, I remove the rear bag. (I consider the rear bag sort of cheating.) When I bring a gun and load to the bench and I know what that pair can do - THEN I'm interested and I get satisfaction from challenging myself to enable the best results possible, using a front rest only.

To each his own.

OR

 

[hq]

This is quickly evolving into a very interesting conversation. As much as it's about whether a rifle and shooter as a combination can attain X level of accuracy, it's when and how consistently they can do it and what's the purpose of it all.

Shooting for fun, your own earlier performance as a yardstick can be fun when you're trying to figure out how your skills, different loads and maybe some adjustments and modifications you've done to your rifle affect. Competing with your buddies is even more so, for tiny bit of bragging rights or a beer bet. Taking it beyond that is another ballgame that may or may not lead to sanctioned shooting competitions. Or posting pictures of your amazingly tiny groups on Internet; whatever floats your boat.

Whenever there are other goals like hunting, one can rarely choose the exact conditions when the shot must be taken and that's when practical accuracy of the rifle and shooter combination comes into play. Too many ½MOA bench shooters suddenly become 10MOA+ shooters when they're taken out of their comfort zone. It's not that much about what's your consistent accuracy level in a controlled environment, it's how well you can put it to use in a variety of situations. Unless bench rest at the range is quite literally the only place where you'll ever shoot.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Considering any actual practical purpose it's rather meaningless. Back in the day when I was still into benchrest competition, the top guys shot consistent 0.6-0.8" five shot groups at 600m (660') in heavy rifle class and 0.1-0.2" ten shot groups at 300m (330') in open class. That's the direction you're eventually heading when the smallest possible group size becomes an obsession. Accuracy is a very relative subject and IMO its meaning beyond the shooter's capabilities from a makeshift rest in real world shooting situation is often blown way out of proportion.

Sorry about slight cynicism here. Top shelf rifles and ammo are getting better all the time and accuracy figures from a bench are mostly a great marketing tool for some buyer groups. As a rule of the thumb, refer to manufacturers' claimed accuracy figures. They reflect what's possible in practise on a good day.

Just a picayune note, but "'" means feet, 660' = 201 meters.

 

[jmr40]

I have no issue with benchrest guys trying to achieve 5 shot groups that leave one hole the same size as the bullet diameter. It isn't practical for me, but driving 500 miles as fast as possible on an oval track isn't practical to most of our driving styles either. Yet lots of people enjoy doing or watching both.

I found this link a while back and saved it. Someone used a computer to calculate the odds of hitting a 10" target at 700 yards and a 20" target at 1000 yards based on group size at 100 yards. There is very little advantage having a .3 MOA rifle vs a 1 MOA rifle.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/15/how-much-does-group-size-matter/

I'd never seen any data to back this up before, but this has always been my philosophy when it came to my hunting rifles and loads. I'm not going to be shooting at game at 700 yards and I've always figured that if my hunting rifles would keep 3 shots at or very near an inch it was all the accuracy I could use in a hunting situation at the ranges I'm going to be shooting. Keep shots under 300 yards and even a 2 MOA rifle is adequate.

Of course we all like to show targets with tiny groups. If I'm able to keep 3 shots closer to 1/2 " that is great. But I'd not shoot a target bullet instead of a hunting bullet to get the accuracy. And I'll not download slower just to shoot 1/2" groups when the faster load will keep things under 1".

 

[hq]

Just a picayune note, but "'" means feet, 660' = 201 meters.

Oops. Typo. Yards, of course.

 

[coloradokevin]

Benchrest shooting of all sorts has always been more or less of a joke. It's a self-contained world with completely arbitrary objectives of no importance outside that world. Basically, the video game of rifle shooting.

Rifles were made to do two things - shoot at animals, and shoot at people. Accuracy is useful in the real world only in as much as it forwards one of those two goals. Sure, we practice on paper for plenty of perfectly good reasons, but it's not the goal.

In the field other factors like shooter stability, wind and target movement end up being the limits on your hit probability on people and animals. Accuracy below the 1MOA to 0.5MOA range plays almost no part - the effect is just too small compared to the other, big effects to matter much.

If you want to be a better rifleman, swear off the bench for a few years. Shoot everything from field positions, including improvised and ruck field positions whenever possible. Make a habit of shooting on windy days. You'll find you don't miss the bench.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. Benchrest shooting is mostly an exercise in demonstrating superior handloading techniques, at least in my mind. The whole goal of the sport is to effectively eliminate the human from the equation, and print the smallest possible group. There's nothing wrong with that, though it really isn't my thing.

But, the reality is that we have to consider what "accuracy" really means in the real world. A benchrest competitor can brag about the fact that they shot a group in the 0.1-0.2" range, and boast that it is a smaller group than X, Y, or Z shooter shot in some other sport. But, does that make the benchrest shooter a better or "more accurate" shooter? In absolute numbers I suppose it does... a smaller group is a smaller group. But, if the other guy shot a group in the 0.3" range while shooting in a field position off of a backpack, I'd be more impressed by that group, personally.

 

[hq]

In absolute numbers I suppose it does... a smaller group is a smaller group. But, if the other guy shot a group in the 0.3" range while shooting in a field position off of a backpack, I'd be more impressed by that group, personally.

That's pretty much what I've been after. It takes little more than some concentration to put five bullets in a 1" circle at 100 yards in a matter of minutes on a calm sunny day, using a heavy rest on a concrete bench at the range. It takes quite a bit more to put a bullet through a 6" diameter deer's heart at the same distance, standing up, using a tree trunk or shooting sticks as a support after a couple of hours of tracking through rough terrain in freezing and windy weather, when a five-second window of opportunity for the shot presents itself.

These are probably the opposite extremes of shooting a non-moving target. Nevertheless, it's all about what you're about to shoot, how, where and under what circumstances. A nice, tight group in optimal conditions is usually just that. Nice. If that just doesn't happen and groups are twice or even three times the size of what's regarded as excellent, there's nothing to worry about unless the smallest possible group is the ultimate goal, not just one of many optional means to an end.

 

[Art Eatman]

A tight group from a benchrest tells what a rifle can do. Away from the benchrest it's up to the shooter to make use of the rifle's capability.

 

[Nature Boy]

found this link a while back and saved it. Someone used a computer to calculate the odds of hitting a 10" target at 700 yards and a 20" target at 1000 yards based on group size at 100 yards. There is very little advantage having a .3 MOA rifle vs a 1 MOA rifle.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/15/how-much-does-group-size-matter/

That's a fantastic article

 

[Bart B.]

A tight group from a benchrest tells what a rifle can do only when it's fired in totally free recoil.
If held by someone, their human variables open up its groups a lot; sometimes 2 MOA or more.

I cannot find that link's remark saying its long range data is based on group size at 100 yards. Depending on the rounds ballistic variabbles and atmospheric variables, group size can increase 20% for each 100 yards past the first 100 yards. Help, please.

 

[imashooter]

A tight group from a benchrest tells what a rifle can do. Away from the benchrest it's up to the shooter to make use of the rifle's capability.

I agree. Regarding this later response, "A tight group from a benchrest tells what a rifle can do only when it's fired in totally free recoil.
If held by someone, their human variables open up its groups a lot; sometimes 2 MOA or more.", For most of us (imo), the above is just fine.

 

[bikemutt]

A tight group from a benchrest tells what a rifle can do. Away from the benchrest it's up to the shooter to make use of the rifle's capability.

I agree entirely. Maybe I'm thinking of splitting the hair at the other end.

If we keep this completely within the benchrest domain, now it's between a machine holding the rifle and a human holding the rifle.

I can actually imagine a case where the human could win just by pure chance; say a gust of wind from left to right, at the same time the shooter "pulls" the shot every so slightly to the left, and we have a bullseye. In any event, I wonder if, in the long run, the human can equal or beat the machine at benchrest?

 

[Dog Soldier]

A very accurate rifle is needed for shooting Prairie Dogs. Shooting at 4 square inches at 500 yards calls for a consistent shooter and rifle. The Big game hunter needs a rifle that holds it's zero for the first shot. It should be able to place a 2nd shot with in 2" of the first. End of story.

 

[Bart B.]

One more thing......

How do you determine whether that "tight" group was caused by all the rifle and ammo plus human variables were almost zero? Or several were much larger but cancelled each other out?

For, example; a bullet left the barrel at its left most bore angle from straight for one of several causes but the shooters center of mass was a little off horizontally causing the line of sight to move right the same amount before the bullet left.

There are many combinations of variables. That's why any load will shoot groups between zero and some units of measure. Tight groups happen as often as loose ones. Group shooting is the same as rolling several pairs of dice. A 7 for each pair is mid point in its variability; 2's and 12's are the limits they are between. Some variables are mostly horizontal; others, vertical and a few can be in any axis. Unit size for each also varies.

 

[murf]

machines don't judge the wind very well.

murf

p.s. the world cup biathlon is going on right now. if you want to see accuracy in field conditions, watch a biathlon event.

 

[Bart B.]

What's the wind speed and linearity error the best mechanical anemometers have reading winds from 1 to 50 mph?

Biathlon is shot with rim fire 22's at 50 meters at huge targets subtending several MOA from standing and prone, rapid fire.

High power match rifle shoot various caliber centerfire rifles standing, sitting and prone, slow and rapid fire at 200, 300, 600 and 1000 yards at tiny targets subtending a few MOA. The best discipline to watch people correcting for wind.

 

[pert near]

It has been said in this thread, just not this way. For the hunter (at least IMHO), a highly accurate rifle boosts confidence. As in many disciplines, including shooting, one important factor is the mind game.