Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles LaRue barrel sale

Truth.



I don't. And I don't care.

Because the zero shift, or shooter error, or inaccurate ammo, or bullet weight that doesn't fit the twist, or random distribution, or any number of potential causes for the dispersion is always within that 2.5MOA circle and has been for the last 8 years or so that I've owned that rifle.

And that's all I need for what I do with that rifle. So I don't obsess over things that other people say should matter, that have no bearing on what I actually need to the gun to do, and I just enjoy it for what it is.
_____________________________________________________

I skimmed over most of the middle of the post, I assume all of the questions were geared towards proving that it's important to know where your bullets will land and that ten shot groups are a good way to determine that.

And I don't have any argument with that.

But what I've realized, and what I tried to stress in my other recent post, was that having an accurate rifle and knowing where all of those shots will land from the bench....

1-Is relative. Because like my 2.5MOA rifle, 1" accuracy isn't necessary for what I do with the rifle.

2-Doesn't a rifleman make. It's a piece of the whole. It's the piece that people focus on the most because it's a piece that you can (within reason) buy skill in and accomplish while sitting in the shade.

Shooting from odd positions, from unsupported positions, at multiple targets, under field stress are also part of that puzzle that makes a rifleman a rifleman.

And that was the point I was trying to make yesterday. If our goal is to prove that we're riflemen, at some point we're going to have to step away from the bench and strive for something more than just MOA groups.

The importance of the POI of the 1st cold bore shot and it's consistency come into play when you're trying to kill something other than a piece of paper. Shots 2-10 mean nothing the majority of the time as targets tend to leave when you miss them.

I hope you can work the rest of it out for yourself.

Blue,

It wouldn't take reading a whole lot of my posts to see my disdain for obsessive bench shooting. But as you say- you don't read what I actually write, so I guess you respond with what you believe I said...?


As to your post above, there is just about zero that I disagree with.

In a proper functioning rifle, there is no "1st shot cold bore and its consistency". A huge part of my life is spent killing things other than paper. The upper end of the sniping community has finally moved passed "cold bore shift" nonsense. The cold bore shot will fall somewhere within the "cone" or group and you have no idea where. You can spend 10 days stroking your gun firing 1 round at the target a day or just fire 10 rounds at one time. In the end you'll get the same size and location of the group(s).

If you believe in "1st cold bore shot and its consistentcy" with a properly functioning rifle then you are part of the "Misconceptions, old wives tales, inexperience, lack of knowledge, and "my daddy said so", group.

If I shoot to kill from a tree stand its a hand held rifle in the sitting position, usually no rest. The confidence that the rifle will put a bullet a half inch away from the spot I am aiming at is why I shoot guns off the bench, to determine the rifles precision, a dog that sprays 4-5 inch groups at 100 yards with 3-4 loads and 2-3 scopes is just gone at a loss. Other folks can live with that, I refuse to do so.

So now we are back to my rifle is broke. Good grief.

I think I'll follow Professor Internet's advice and leave. No need to argue over nothing with a level 5

Blues gun repeatably does what he needs it to, consistently.

Thats as much as it needs to.

I would puke my guts out with a gun that innaccurate, but in all honesty if I was taking 300 yard and less body shots on deer, it would not matter much.

Being thats not all I do, and a 300 yard head shot is something I have no isses with at times (considering conditions etc...) it would not work to have that gun.

Bottom line we all have different needs.

I know clean bore shots can sometimes be nuts. Cold bore I've never really had an issue with, and if you do, it tends to be a shooter error generally... IMHO

what is a cold bore shot?

seriously during hunting season I check my zero about every week with 1-2 shots from the gun I am hunting with, usually off the tailgate of a truck using a front bag only. It don't shoot as good as off the bench that way for some reason...I guess its them cold bores?

All this because LaRue won't reveal what their barrels are made of...

Oh, and I did order one, so we'll see how it shoots once it arrives. I'll be sure and report back.

at this point, LR is the only one that won't answer the question..... says a LOT about something, marketing, arrogance, I'm not sure.

One thing, you can bet your tube will shoot well enough to satisfy most folks.

Jimmy, one reason for shooting, is to realize that offhand vs slung up vs bipod, vs bench may well give you different repeatable offset impact/zero's

You shoot a lot and thats good. I'm lazy.. I check my zero before season,sometimes I'm really lazy as if the first round falls within my predicted fallout zone, I'm done. I won't check again till the next year unless something demands it.

Not that he needs my help, but you guys who are arguing with Formid need to understand that his explanation isn't even really about shooting, it's about statistics and probability.



Actually, if that's your explanation then you might realize that you aren't basing your zero off a 3- or 4-shot group, but rather a group that probably numbers in the hundreds, fired over time at dozens of targets, cold barrel, warm barrel, etc. As much as the thought may appall you, you are basically agreeing with Formid.

If you fire a 10-shot group, the first 3 might be one near POA, one towards 3 o'clock and one towards 6 o'clock. Would you question your well established zero if this happened? The next three might be a little high and to the left. This isn't because the barrel is getting warm, it's simply probability at work, with everything eventually balancing back to the mean. Heck flip a coin 4 times and get 3 heads and 1 tails, what do you make of that?

The point is, 3-4 shots is not enough data points to judge your true zero... there is 360 degrees and infinite distances of dispersion to account for, and by your own admission you are acknowledging that.

As far as cold bore shot #1 vs. 2-10, I don't think Formid is saying they need to go into the same hole. Rather, they need to go int the same GROUP. Fire 5 10-shot groups on the same target and let your barrel cool down between each GROUP. If you end up with two different groups, with the #1's going into one group, and #2-10's going into another distinct group, then yes, you have a broken gun.

Bless your heart.

if 20 shots of federal gold medal match shot with a known good 25 power scope in a good solid scope mount using a bulls bag and duplicated by 5 shooters go into an 8 inch pattern at 100 yards is the gun broken or does it meet your needs adequately and is not broken! I mean is it two groups or one or whatever !

It really depends on your application. Frankly I have seen people shoot that size group at 25 yards and are damn proud of their skill. I have seen this many times at a local indoor rifle range. Diversity is what makes us hole, I mean whole. Blue I just want to say for the record that I respect your diversity. 😄

No, it's not. His explanations are just generalized & are far from any real statistical explanation.

MM

Yes they are generalized, however regal me with how you determine that the gun is mechanically sound and will do the task(s) that you require of it?

How do you determine-

1) That it is reliable enough to do the job?

2) That it places it's round with enough precision to consistently hit the target?

3) That it remains accurate by maintaining zero?


I'll ignore for know the MASSIVE benefit in practical use of being able to group shoot on bullseye's for score, how is it that you do something as fundamental as knowing what size target the gun can hit, and/or whether it is still zeroed? Can you have a true zero (POI/POA) using 3 rounds? Is it statistically possible?


How many rounds/groups do you feel/need to fire to know that 95%(as an example) of all rounds fired will fall within a specific size target? If you don't do/know that, then how do you determine what targets you can and can not hit? With what percentage of certainty?

It's often bantered on this board that you shouldn't take a shot at an animal unless you are _____ percent sure of a first round hit (usually 80% to 90%). If like the vast majority, you don't do any of the above, how can you even come up with an idea of how certain you are to hit the the animal based on just mechanical accuracy, let alone take into account all the issues that field shooting entails such as shooting position, fatigue, wind, animal movement, etc?







rost,

I do want to have a discussion and get your thoughts an differing zeros bass upon different shooting positions. TWR, it's your thread so we can discuss here or I can start a new one if you like?

Why do I, in both personal and professional life, use multiple ten round groups to determine the baseline precision of every gun? Because it works. I have been fortunate to work at organizations that place an exceedingly high emphasis on shooting skill with almost unlimited resources. Last year I fired a bit over 42,000 rifle rounds with every single one of them being scored/measured. That is not at all an unusual amount.

I didn't always believe it. I very much used to be in the "3 rounds tests the rifle, 5 rounds tests the shooter" camp. Then several years ago I started working somewhere that placed an unusually high emphasis on marksmanship and the standard rifle/carbine drills and tests were shot on 25m pistol bulls eye (B8's) from muzzle to 200 yards from all positions. Just about every drill or test was based around 10 round groups. You zeroed with 10 rounds, scored with at least ten rounds, and every morning you confirmed zero with at least one 10 round group for score. There were/are no "oppsies", no "flyers", no "pulled shots", no excuses. Failing a test or missing a single shot could be the end of your job.

The explanation of why they do that? Because the best shooters and couches in the world- NRA High Masters, USPSA GM's, top 3 gunners, guys like Bryan Litz, etc. told them that was the way to do it. And through a couple decades of experience has proven that it works.

Even still I had my doubts initially so after work one Friday I took a recce M4 (16in match AR15) and stacked multiple target on top of each other. Now I knew that gun consistently shot sub MOA for 3 rounds at 100 yards, but also knew that I couldn't gaurantee it could hit a 1 MOA target.

So I had one target as a backer that caught all rounds. I fired 5x three round groups at five fresh targets and one that caught all 15 rounds. Then I fired 3x five round groups at 3 fresh targets and one that caught all 15 rounds. And then I fired 2x ten round groups on the French targets. And I also had the backer that had all 50 shots on it.

The result-

3 round groups averaged just under 1 MOA, yet the target with all the 3 rounds groups in it was just under 2 MOA. Of course looking at the seperate targets it was plain to see that those "sub MOA" 3 round groups had a nasty habit of not hitting the target in the same place.


The 5 round groups averaged something around 1.2-1.3 MOA, with the target that had all 15 rounds in it being right at 1.8 MOA. Hmmmm.

The two 10 round groups averaged almost exactly 2 MOA, with the target with both on it being around 2.1 MOA or so.

And then backer with all 50 shots had an extreme spread of 2.2 something MOA.

One of my teammates was good with statistics and did the math that a single 10 round group offered something in the high 80 to low 90% range of where all rounds fired will land. Three 10 round groups was in the high 90% range.

After we got electronic target systems I was able to do this many more times. Always the same results. Since following those standards I no longer have "off call" shots. I am much better able judge what shots are makable and which aren't, and have a solid grasp of the likelihood of hitting and know how to adjust the shot to make those numbers go up.






What does all that gibberish mean to the guys that just want to buy a rifle, zero and shoot animals? It depends. If all your doing is shooting deer at 100-200 yards than it really doesn't make a difference. The error present is a couple 3 round groups during zeroing is able to mask itself inside the target size. However, if you start trying to consistently kill game or targets past 200-300 yards than ALL of it matters. Those small inconsistencies and errors start adding up to lots of misses and low percentage odds.

It is nothing for those "half MOA 3 round" guys with hunting scopes, to have 3-4 MOA of error built in for that 400 yard shot at a deer. Things like true group size, a true zero, scope tracking, wind, etc. that do not cause issues at close range can and will screw up otherwise good shots.




As to the thought of 10 rounds groups having a human error to it.... I have to wonder at the people that believe they will be able to make shots in real life under stress/excitement whether it's hunting, self protection, or competition from often uncomfortable positions under time constraints, yet can't sit at a bench and press a trigger 10 times without have a seizure......

Formie, by all means carry on right here if you like. The barrel sale is over.

I, like most others started shooting 3 round groups then moved on to 5. But now I'm starting to see the benefits of multiple 10 shot groups. Even I can learn a thing or two.

It's much easier to shoot a ten round group then adjust your scope, rather than adjusting it back and forth between 3 shot groups... Besides I like to shoot.

Exactly and then will sling insults if you do the same thing.

For sure the 10'shot groups are a measure of you, the ammunition, and the rifle. It is now clear to me when I make a mistake that is not due to the equipment. It is also certainly more expensive to do this. The common practice ammo just seems to suck now, another blow to the wallet, but as the man said "close" only applies to horse shoes and hand grenades.

different thread.

FWIW in a 100ish yard deer hunting gun I can zero the gun in one shot and feel 80% sure...

But I have to be over 100% sure to make me happy.....