It would be pretty easy. Just stack up three targets with the edges ever so slightly misaligned from each other. Shoot one bullet through the pile. Presto, a tiny “3 shot group” on the back one.

????????


If I'm was gonna do that,
I'd shoot at 25 and claim 100.

Crooked is crooked.

Do what? Can you explain this a little better? Three targets stacked up and shot once should leave one hole in each of three targets. Where foes three holes come from?

When I do a re-barrel for a picky customer like BSA 1917 and Gnoahhh, I just moves the target in to about 6 yards, which avoids flame scorching the target. I can get some nice groups like that.

Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it.

I'm with y'all. 🤔

Yeah... Not sure how multiple targets, each with one hole in them is supposed to fool somebody?

There WAS an article in Gun Digest in the 1990's(?) that had a similar context. It was titled something like, "What 15 shots can tell you.", or "What you can learn with 15 shots."

The shooter had multiple targets stacked and directly spaced behind each other at ( I think) 100 yards. I don't remember the exact "experiment design" or methodology, but it went something like this:

-the first target stayed in place for all 15 shots, showing a single 15 shot group size to measure.
-the second target-maybe 1-2 inches behind the first target, was changed every 5 shots-yielding three targets with 5 shots each to measure group size.
-the third target, again spaced 1-2" behind the second target (and ~ 4' behind the first target), was changed every three shots, yielding 5 targets having a 3 shot group to measure for group size..
-there may have been another target to get two 10-shot group sizes-but don't remember.

I believe the point of the article was to simple address if there was a statistical difference in group size between a single 3-shot group (compared to an aggregate, or average (?) of 5, 3-shot groups) , vs. a single 5-shot group (compared to an aggregate or maybe average of 3, 5-shot groups, vs. one or two 10-shot groups vs a single 15-shot group. I don't remember the conclusion of the experiment. There was not a hint of intent to "trick" or "intent to glean any advantage of reporting a "tweaked" group size." The intent of the article was simply, "this technique CAN be done, and here's how I did it." I remember it being done in the interest of science and statistical probability (with a certain level of statistical confidence, (ie "6 sigma analysis"), and not a means to find a way to "cheat" or falsely report a tighter-than-achieved group size.

So, "Yes" there was an article in a "major" firearms publication that covered the OP's overall concept-but with a different intent or focus.

Yeah... Not sure how multiple targets, each with one hole in them is supposed to fool somebody?

????????


If I'm was gonna do that,
I'd shoot at 25 and claim 100.

Crooked is crooked.

When I do a re-barrel for a picky customer like BSA 1917 and Gnoahhh, I just moves the target in to about 6 yards, which avoids flame scorching the target. I can get some nice groups like that.

Kimber.....A decent example of whatever

MOA Standard......it holds no water and is hardly a guarantee

Plus

Their test range is 50 yards

Heres a novel idea. Shoot good groups. No lying needed. Edk

I recall one company with provided test targets which included powder burns. Another provided targets which had obviously been cut with a paper cutter. All rifles, regardless of caliber, had the same size holes. GD

Wow. I just re-read what I posted. That didn't make a damned bit of sense. I need to refrain from posting when I'm tired. Please disregard what I posted. I promise, it made sense in my head!

pointy pencil, make your holes where needed.

pointy pencil, make your holes where needed.

It would be pretty easy. Just stack up three targets with the edges ever so slightly misaligned from each other. Shoot one bullet through the pile. Presto, a tiny “3 shot group” on the back one.

Don't leave out the old 1 shot... "three shot group"

Yeah I've seen a few recently that were claimed to be 10 shot groups. I get that sometimes a bullet passes through the same hole with no evidence of it from a picture, but 3 or 4 Whoodini bullets in one group? I'm skeptical to say the least

I shoot so many 1 hole 3 shot groups that it isn't even funny. Just about every time out it happens. They are part of a 5 or 10 shot group, but I've thought that it is senseless to walk down to the target, and pull it off the target board and interrupt a good 10 shot group.


During load development with one of my AR10's. Here's the groups on each side of that charge weight:



You guys that are skeptical can't shoot for fu ck or don't have very good rifles.



The problem is you and your rifle can't shoot like that, so you are "skeptical". Fuggin laughing..


I feel the same way about a lot of targets I see here, only opposite. In that it's like: How the fu ck do you guys shoot like schidt?? Why is the group always way the fugg off the bulls eye??? There are all kinds of shooters, I guess.

I don't mind groups off bull. Shooting for groups and shooting to zero are separate often. No need to rezero when trying new loads.

Also there's an advantage to not shooting out your aiming point when really testing for accuracy.

Kimber.....A decent example of whatever

MOA Standard......it holds no water and is hardly a guarantee

Plus

Their test range is 50 yards

I don't mind groups off bull. Shooting for groups and shooting to zero are separate often. No need to rezero when trying new loads.

Also there's an advantage to not shooting out your aiming point when really testing for accuracy.