Col. Townsend Whelen said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." Ok, setting aside any debate as to whether or not what he said is actually true, what was acceptable hunting rifle accuracy when he wrote it? What is acceptable hunting rifle accuracy today? I know that everyone talks about rifles that shoot little cloverleaves at 100 yards; but is that really necessary when shooting at deer-size game within common hunting ranges? Say 200 yards or less?

My guess is that while many rifles today are sub-moa, even untweaked from the factory, the average hunter probably isn't. So practically speaking, what is acceptable hunting rifle accuracy?

I'm posting this here as I hope some of the professional gunscribes will chime in as well.

Whelen liked accurate rifles both for their own sake, and because he was a New Endgland woodchuck shooter. But I doubt he was so picky about his big game rifles.

My experience is that any rifle that averages 1-1/2", 3-shot groups at 100 yards will kill big game a lot further than most hunters can. Have used several to take big game neatly out to 300-450 yards on numerous occasions, and the only problems encountered were when I read the wind wrong or had a brain-fart. The accuracy of the rifle was never a problem.

Of course, I'd shot them all at longer ranges, so knew they'd keep their shots within 3" of point of aim out at 400. With typical heart-lung shots all you need to do is hit a volleyball-sized area, and even a pronghorn's chest is larger than a volleyball.

I like accuracy as much as the next guy, but suspect a lot of the obsession with "deer rifles" shooting sub-inch groups is that the average hunter/handloader spends a lot more time shooting off a bench than he does hunting, and counts his loading room and bench time as part of the game.

Two hundred yards or less? Anything that would group within 6 inches would be good for that.

As for the rest, I think anything two inches and less is good for practical accuracy out to five hundred yards or so. At four hundred yards your crosshairs take up several inches in themselves on an animal.

You know, those old buffalo rifles were considered excellent long range rifles and there were some fantastic shots made with them. I would be surprised if many of them grouped less than three inches at 100 yards given the quality of ammunition and everything else back then. But who knows? They didn't shoot many groups back then and they used iron sights for the most part.

Enough said! Agreed.

I like all my rifles to group under a inch at 100 yards not because i need this accuracy for hunting Big Game but because accurate rifle give you more confidence in shooting ability , which leads to your performance in the field improving , nothing helps shooters like have confidence in their shooting equipment .

That is a good point, but I don't think you have any reason to be less than completely confident if your rifle will only group under two inches instead of one.

I think this describes me. The mental aspect certainly impacts a great deal of shooting for me.

My hunting rifles are also my prairie dog/coyote/gopher/steel shooting rifles and I like them to be under MOA to the 500 for three shots. If they can't do that consistently I start drinking and begin gunsmithing.

And quite frankly, with as good as schit is today this is not a difficult thing to do.



Travis

bea: Agree with that,too. The 1.5" thing is more a minimum standard kind of thing.

But more importantly (for me)I tend to run rifles pretty quickly to the 300-400 yard lines(and further after I get a feel for them),and see how we both do from field positions and various rests and positions.

One thing for sure is I am not much for sitting at the 100 yard line and squeezing groups,unless I sense there is something really "wrong" with the rifle/load.

Pretty much where I'm at too. If I can get MOA-ish to 300-400yds with three shots, using the bullet I desire, then that's plenty good enough for me in a general-purpose, sporter-weight hunting rifle.

Pretty much any rifle with a suitable caliber/bullet combination that will shoot a 1 1/2" group at 100 yards is going to take any deer within 200 yards. I specify "suitable caliber/bullet" because a .30/30 will readily shoot the rquisite group at 100 yards, but 200 yards is stretching unless the shooter has a lot of familiarity with the trajectory.

I've owned my share of deer rifles; bedded actions, good triggers, worked up handloads. Off a bench some were more accurate than others. Shooting targets from field positions without any kind of rest there wasn't enough difference to make a difference.

Agreed!



Yep!

Back when I was young and inexperienced I hunted with a thutty-thutty topped by a $29 Tasco scope (that was painful to admit. Not the Tasco part, the scope part). I used whatever ammo was on the shelf at K-mart and if you'd asked me how many MOA my rifle shot you would've drawn a blank stare.

That rifle is the one I killed my biggest deer with. These days my rifles are much more accurate and I'm a better hunter, but the two are not that closely related.

If any of my rifles won't do 1" at 100 consistently, then they get a new tube or sent down the road. A 2" group at 100 is an 8" group at 400 best case scenario. With the shakes or a little wind you are more likely in the 10-12" range. No thanks.

Same here. My rule is 3/4 of an inch. And I very rarely have one that can't do it between bedding and handloading.

Guess my thought are as a whole the hobby includes loading and I love the whole process.

I agree that out to 200 an inch and a half will do.

For me, 1 inch or less or the gun stays home. In fifty odd years I've never violated that standard with a rifle/load that I intended for anything more than fifty yards. I almost always stay inside 200 yards when I kill deer. I do however keep that standard so that I have "insurance" in case I make a mistake judging distance, judging wind, or the light is just messing with my head. That I know the rifle is that accurate allows me a lot more range if I have tested the gun/load and I decide I need the range. I am hunting with a rifle I can do whatever I might need to within reason. I trust that and I am more comfortable making much more difficult shots when I chose to do so. With the vast majority of today's rifles, that is no longer such a high standard, nor hard to attain.

MILES not directed at you.It's the notion I dispute, not your opinion.

Caveat: If you have a rifle that stacks them all at 100 into one hole, more power to you.I love rifles like that.(You have to say that on here or someone will jump down your throat for settling for low accuracy standards ).

And I agree that it isn't hard today to do better. In truth it never has been in my lifetime.

But let's look at this for the sake of those poor slobs who feel inadequate because their rifle nudges over an inch with their factory fodder.Can they kill BG animals past 200 yards with such "shoddy" performance? Of course they can.

The rifle that throws three shots into 1.5 inches at 100 will theoretically put them in 3" at 200,4.5" at 300,and 6" at 400.

This means that at 400 yards, any one of those three shots will land within 2" of where the cross hairs rest( valid since we never kill animals with "groups"). And is likely less than many reticles will subtend at that distance.

Given Mule Deer's standard of a volley ball,you should hit it every time at 400 yards with a 1.5" rifle and a solid rest.

Drop the group size at 100 yards to 1",and we have(theoretically) a 4" three shot group at 400 yards...which places all three shots within 1.33" of the center of the reticle....so we are shooting a whole 3/4" tighter at 400 yards.

I would submit, that if you miss with one, you are going to miss with the other...and it won't be the rifle nor the load that needs work...it's the shooter.

I come to this conclusion having killed BG animals with rifles capable of both types of accuracy at 300-400 yards,so believe the notion is valid.YMMV.

It's all about how errors combine, and it isn't straight addition. The errors accumulated in the less sterile environment of field shooting tend to swamp the difference between a 1 MOA rifle and a 3/4 MOA rifle as measured from the bench. And this is coming from an inveterate handload tinkerer who loves to shoot from the bench.

I can't help thinking about the weighed vs. thrown powder charge or scope magnification discussions either. I've done enough shooting at 300 yards with thrown charges of long stick IMR 3031 and 4064 and lower powered scopes to know if you can't get well below MOA at typical deer hunting range, then it isn't lack of magnification or imprecise powder charges holding you back.

Like most I like accurate rifles, they instill confidence. However that said I get bored sitting at the 100yard line. Much prefer shooting steel plate at distance and from field positions.
If what I witness at the public range prior to hunting season most hunters are happy with a rifle that will group within the black at 100 yards and that is a far cry from 1 inch.JMO

mathman: Exactly and well said in my view.

Another "swamping" factor is shooter skill.A lousy field shot is not really helped much by a 1/2" difference in grouping ability in a rifle.

Rifle shooting is a primary focus of mine. As a senior rifleman, hunter and competitor I shoot rifles outdoors as a hobby weekly weather permitting.

Staying sighted in or that the first shot from a rifles cold barrel hits where I want it at 200 yds has become primary for me with the hunting rifles. For target competition groups are more important.

A current pet is my 30-06 custom on an old mauser. Just before the season started last year I checked it at 200 yds. and it put it's first shot 1" high and 1" to the left at 200 yds.

The second confirming shot hit 2" high hitting about where I want it at 200 and making a 2" group there. I gave it a positive check mark on the notes.

It's the second from the top.

Among the multiple reasons I don't believe 1-inch accuracy isn't needed for big game shooting even at 300-400 yards is the multiple animals I've killed over the decades at those ranges with rifles that would only average 1-1/2". And as I mentioned in my first post, I can't remember one I missed except through shooter error.

I do prefer a little more accuracy, but gun writers are often invited on hunts where they're handed a rifle, get to shoot maybe a dozen or so shots with it, and then go try to kill an animal. I've been on plenty of these, and not only shot quite a few animals but been with my fellow writers and other people when they killed quite a few. So far damn few animals were missed or wounded, and when they were it was also due to shooter error. The reality is that shooting skill is a far bigger factor in the field than relatively small differences in a rifle's accuracy.

Of course, shooting skill among gun writers isn't equal. Probably the least practiced are those who due to their job have to live in or near big cities. As a result they don't get to shoot as much, especially at varmints--and any shooting at actual animals, at varying distances, teaches more about field shooting than any sort of inanimate target. The really good rifle shots among the gun writers I've hunted with are John Haviland, Brian Pearce, Ron Spomer, Dave Scovill and others who grew up hunting in rural areas, still shoot and hunt a lot, and consequently know how to shoot game.

Most of these also don't care very much about minor differences in accuracy, or the cartridge, exact poundage of the trigger, the exact power of the scope, etc. etc. This is because they've used so many different rifles, and usually have no control over any of those things--and yet manage to kill almost all the animals they shoot at quite neatly.

Yet another reason is that most hunters who claim their rifle always shoots inside an inch at 100 only shoot 3-shot groups. Five-shot groups will open that up to around 1-1/2", and no, this is NOT usually due to the barrel heating up. Instead it's due to statistics: Shoot more than three rounds and you'll find out more about the consistent accuracy of a rifle. The group diameter tend to level off more above five shots, but most half-inch rifles are 3-shot wonders.

I think that Bob's previous comment is spot on. In the late 70's and all through the 80's we used 1 1/2" at 100 yds to be the benchmark for our coyote hunting rifles, shots to 300 or a tad further once every 5 years. We killed hell out of coyotes with these rifles that printed 1 1/2" at 100, and a deer is a lot bigger than a coyote.

If you are only shooting 200 yards, chances are the vast majority of your shots will be shorter. So, I would say that 2" groups at 100 would be more than adequate and would probably produce 3 1/2"-4 1/2" groups at 200...plenty good enough.

Now, practice, practice, practice

Bob,

I keep that inch standard because when it comes to making a hole in an animal I take the conservative approach and make the assumption that half the of my error will be additive and half subtractive If have four inches of wobble with a 3 inch gun at two hundred yards, then half my shots will be at 5-1/2 inches off my mark. It's a simplified way to do the numbers, but it's not too bad if you want to stay on the conservative side. I look at it like that and consider my mistakes in wind and distance do nothing to decrease the miss and can push half my shots that much further out.

Accepting that half my shots will help me and the other half hurt that much more makes it hard for me to accept a variable that I can minimize.

Yeah, but in the 70's everything sucked so you didn't have much choice.

You probably even had to listen to the BeeGees on the way to the range.


Travis

keith,

That parallels my experience with varmint shooting.

One of the other factors I forgot to mention is that a lot of rifles are more inherently accurate than typical 100-yard targets show. This is because VERY few shooters use wind flags when at an outdoor range, and even fewer have access to indoor ranges. An erratic 3-5 mph breeze will increase group size noticeably at 100 yards, even from a big game rifle shooting heavy-for-caliber bullets.

A friend who works for an optics company that has an indoor range were talking about this just the other day. We both have Remington 700 Classics in .221 Fireball, and with their favorite loads both rifles will average around 1/2" for 5-shot groups at an outdoor range. With the SAME loads my friend's rifle will average .3 or less on the indoor range. I've seen the same thing with larger rifles as well.

I would have to agree with this the most. Even with archery tackle I strive for the best tuned and accurate bow and arrow set up I can muster. I just role the same line of thinking over to my rifles. However you look at accuracy you are only as good as the day.

On any given day in the field it is my job to put that projectile in the pocket from whatever angle and distance I am at the shot. To me that's the hard part. Making the shot at that moment in time that you have to.

Every hunter learns this. There is a time you either miss(screw it up) or you pull it off with confidence. You also know when you have missed your opportunity as your confidence is tested. My shot sequence is a learned reaction not a guess.

So to the OP - I feel my rifles are accurate to whatever range I have built them for. An iron sight lever gun or a scoped speed demon. I would like to say I am proficient at 300 yards but I am a heck of a lot better at 75. So I try and stalk closer. If I cannot get closer and I know its time for my shot, then all of that practice and time in load development come into play or (what happens way to many times)I just don't take the shot.

I can live with this. I have done it long enough to know when its a missed opportunity and no I don't care for it. But that's hunting. I really don't want that to change either.

Yes an 1.5" or better for 3 at 100 yds is great and certainly acceptable. I have a BLR in 358 Win. that will do 2" consistently at 100 yds. I have shot many animals to 200 yds with this gun. This past Jan a Tom bobcat went down at over 180 yds. I like consistently in my hunting rifle. Will it do 1" groups every time with no excuses.

Eh, 1.5" is acceptable. However my OCD only accepts 1".

A few years ago we had a couple of guys show up at our range with a 30-30 that they needed to sight in for deer hunting. From their accents, it was clear that they came from the same rural part of Utah as my wife.

They put up a paper plate at 100 yards, and proceeded to scatter shots across it. Then they agreed, "Yep. She's hittin' good."

My bet is that those boys brought home the venison.

In the field, if you have a perfect rifle, but are limited to 3" groups because of wind, lack of an adequate rest, etc., then switching to a rifle that shoots 1.5" under ideal circumstances will only open your groups up to 3.35". That's not a lot of practical difference.

I tend to follow the advice of the renowned outdoor writer Patrick McManus. He once stated that his theory was to randomly scatter your shots since you never could be sure which way a deer may jump just as you let off a shot. I find that Mr. McManus and I have very similar hunting, fishing and camping/woodcraft skills and I have come to respect his lifetime of experience greatly.

Hunting rifles = <2MOA
Internet rifles = <.5MOA

Time to bring out the old man in the green pickup story again. Have posted this about three times before but it bears repeating. And yes, this actually happened.

About 1977 I was going to Utah State U. One early fall day several folks were at a range alongside US 89 south of Logan, Utah, sighting in our rifles before hunting season. We were all making those final 1/2" adjustments to the point of impact on our high powered scoped rifles, me with my .25-06 #1 and a Redfield scope. You know, fire three from a solid rest, tweak the scope two clicks, fire three more, one more click windage and so forth.

A beat up old green pickup pulled up and a "grizzled old timer" straight out of Central Casting gets out. The pickup probably dated from the late '50's or so, the old guy had stereotypical grey stubble, sweat stained hat and clothes, etc. He took a big cardboard box to the 100 yard line, looked big enough to hold a stove or maybe big console TV. No aiming point, just the box. When he got back to the firing line he fired three shots - offhand - from a Model 94 .30-30 about as equally grizzled as he was.

When we went to check targets he had about a 12" triangle of a group square in the middle of the box. "Lookee there, Martha", he said to the lady in the pickup cab, "still shoots where she did last year."

With that he got in the truck and drove off.

As I drove home I passed a ranch house with that same green pickup parked out front. On the barn were nailed more deer and elk antlers than I had time to count driving by. Basically the front of the barn was covered with them.

Now, just circumstantial evidence, maybe he was just visiting someone, but I tend to believe that that old timer had shot all those deer and elk with that same .30-30.



I always wondered how folks ever shot game when a factory rifle that put three shots into 4" was about standard.

They knew how to hunt close.

Like all of you guys I like my rifles accurate as possible and 1 1/2" at 100 yds for 3 shots is a good starting place for a hunting rifle. I have several that will do 1" or better, and I paid a lot of money for a couple of them.

But I will big game hunt with a 1 1/2" rifle without any worry if it is consistent. My first big game rifle was a used Rem 760 30-06 that my mother purchased from my uncle for me when I was 13 years old. She paid $80.00 to him for it. That rifle would shoot any 180 gr. round into 2" every day, rain or shine, this year or next, bouncing in the truck (you get the picture)and I never adjusted the scope more than one or twice in the 20 years I had it. It did not seem to matter what brand I could put the whole box into a 2" circle. Like a dummy I sold it to a friend of mine who was down on his luck and needed a rifle for his son to start hunting. NOW THAT WAS A HUNTING RIFLE.

Have high expectations of my hunting rifles. Those that go into the field meet or exceed that expectation. I load my own ammo an am meticulous without being OCD. That said, 1 cup of coffee to much will throw the equation off in the field or at the bench.

It you want to get technical, neither 3 shot or 5 shot groups is statistically significant. A statistical sample is 30. Nobody is going to shoot 30 rounds at a target, there is no point because the barrel would get too hot.

I also think there is no point of going over 3 for a hunting weight rifle. 3 shots rules out the flier, and that is good enough.

Lets face it. the only reason why we are so obsessive with the "one-holer" or some xx" is because this is stated all over the 'net. Where I came from in KY many old timers used levers to bring home vension and probably never shot recreationally.

I think there is nothing wrong to chase better accuracy when we have the time and money do it. This is just another hobby we shooters like to partake in.

The sad thing is that some guys taken 2" rifles and send them down the road in order to satisfy their quest to get that one-holer. If that is what you want to do then that is ok, nothing wrong with that but for sure those old timers had rifles for hunting only and filling their ark for winter meat. Nothing more so in reality it does not take xx accuracy to hit a deer. Just hit them and bring home the meat. Of course all of this one-holer is fed by not only the 'net but by magazines and general shooting looneyism. and many of us have more than 5 rifles to play with :-)

I hunt more with a lever gun than anything else. I hunt in swamps, and in thick cover.
If my Marlin 30-30 or .44 Mag keeps under two inches at 50 yards, I'll not be blaming the rifle if I miss.
Never was a paper puncher, for the sake of making little bitty groups.

Mule Deer is right. On average, 5 shot groups will be 1.27 X the size of 3 shot groups. It comes from the fact that as you add shots, the group size never gets smaller and sometimes gets larger.

The old saw about needing 30 items for statistical significance is something that comes up a lot. Actually, that's the minimum number of samples needed for Z tests to work. Everybody gets taught that in college stats, and for some reason it sticks. It's not too important, because practically nobody uses Z tests since the invention of the T Test back in about 1925. College courses are slow to change. If colleges offered careers in hunting, I swear we would be learning about the 50 Sharps and the best place to shoot a bison.

People who favor 3-shot groups are usually asking the wrong question. They often seem to reason that they never shoot more than 3 shots at a critter. The better question is, how well does a 3 shot group predict future performance of the firearm? The answer is, not very well at all.

The average of three 5-shot groups is a decent estimate of the long term accuracy of the rifle. I'd have to look back at my notes, but IIRC that will get you a plus or minus 25% estimate. Getting a much better number than that requires a lot more shooting.

Here's 10 shots as fast as I could shoot them at 100yds yesterday. The rifle it was shot with is probably one of the greatest rifles ever assembled (Howa action, McMillan stock, Broughton barrel, Timney trigger, etc.) but the load it was shot with was assembled for a different barrel/chamber and was only being shot for schit and grins.

Scope was a 6X and the rifle weighs well under 8lbs. Group is under 1 1/2"s.



Today I shot a similar 10 shot group with a pre-Garcia Sako equipped with a 7X.

What does this tell me? It tells me if you're a rifle loony and have something that can't put 3 shots well under MOA, you should buy a new [bleep] rifle.


Travis

Denton,

A young statistician recently contacted me, saying he's worked out some new and better stuff about accuracy. I've only looked at part of it so far--but the most interesting aspect so far is that I've been wondering about the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN'S protocol for testing rifles with one load, which is five, 5-shot groups at 100 yards. I had my suspicions this started back in Townsend Whelen's day, so asked the editor. He'd recently done some research himself and found out it started when General Hatcher was in charge, though it may well have had its roots with Whelen.

The interesting thing is that when I told the young man about this protocol, he sounded very skeptical--but then got back to me a couple days later and said he'd put it through his system, and it's actually pretty good--far better than he would have guessed!

Anyway, there have been a number of people research how many shots it takes for a group to reveal the actual potential of a certain rifle and load. I'll look at several in the article, but many come down to similar general conclusions--none of which involve 3-shot groups.

The BeeGees?

That hurts...

I take a contrary view from most I guess, mostly because it amuses me to multitask with rifles. What is required has zip to do with what I accept from a given firearm, nor does its performance necessarily govern how I use it.

With only a very few exceptions I don't own a rifle incapable of MOA or better over the course of 5 shots fired at a range of 50 to 100 yards. Coming up soon in the neighborhood is a 600 yard line and that will be an education in its own right I suppose.

Why 50? It is unlikely my .22 short shooter will ever be tested at 100 yards in the field, I see no reason to waste ammo. It will shoot successive 5 shot groups at 50 yards off a bag rest that are 1/2" center to center...if I have a conventional scope mounted. With a 3MOA red dot sight it will shoot 1/2" or less out to 25 yards which is further than I shoot in the field 99% of the time. So, what do I need? Minute of pig brain. I shoot from a rest in the field. Our "field" down this way is full of trees and they make wonderful rests.

A Model 94 Trapper with a William receiver sight and hand loads will do far better than I need at 100 yards, about 3" wads. Longest shot I've taken on game was about 75 yards, shortest nearly put powder burns on the hide.


The BeeGees? Dayum, that makes my skin crawl.

Travis,

I have a .204 that will shoot even better--and it's "built" on a bone-stock (not even blueprinted) 700 action, with a Tupperware Remington factory stock, and a Remington factory barrel that somebody took off an action they wanted to turn into a custom rifle.

I unscrewed the original barrel from the rifle (which I'd fried shooting at rodents), then screwed on the "take-off." The headspace checked out OK so I shot it with the same load that shot well in the fried barrel.

I also have a bone-stock Ruger American .308 that will put 10 into less than 1-1/2"--with factory ammo. (Three-shot groups with the same ammo go under 1/2".) Have other factory rifles that will do similar things. The truth is that today benchrest accuracy is cheaply obtained--but none of this proves anything one way or another about what level of accuracy is required for shooting big game at conventional ranges.

Personally, I've center-punched the lungs of a bull caribou at 350 yards with a pre-'64 .270 Winchester that wouldn't average much better than 2" at 100 yards--because the sights were the factory bead and a Lyman 48 aperture. It was relatively easy, since I'd shot the rifle considerably, and the lungs of a bull caribou are pretty large. Which is one of the points of my first post on this thread.

In the event of something happening to me,
There something I would like you all to see.
It's just a photograph of someone that I knew...

Five five-shot groups would give a little better precision that three do. Just on a SWAG, it would probably give you an estimate of the long term average, plus or minus 15%. But somewhere in that ballpark is the sweet spot for effort vs. reward.

I've fiddled with various schemes, some of which involve a lot more effort, and give only slightly better results. I have yet to find something that is simple to apply in the field that is better than averaging a few groups. Measures of dispersion are slippery devils that don't like to be made to stand still and tell the truth.

You could build a system out of a larger number of three shot groups, but it wouldn't give you any better information or reduce the number of shots required.

I do have a few comfortably sub-MOA rifles, and I like them. If I ever need to engage a pronghorn at 700 yards, I'll surely get one out of the safe. But usually I'm asking what I would simply enjoy shooting. Pretty often that comes down to my cheapo bolt action 30-30, or my lever action 357. Those are more like 2 MOA rifles, but they are just fun to shoot.

Phuggit, a 1 shot group is all we really need. Confirm proper POI and call it a day . That means hit what the [bleep] you are aiming at and all is good :

"You can tell by the I use my walk I'm a woman's man - no time to talk."

Dig it. And anybody that nailed this...



...was doing something right.

This entire thread is subjective. Hunting rifle in Crow's world can and does mean anything from the .22 Hornet to the .45-70. They have differing levels of acceptable accuracy. Hitting a deer at 200 ain't so hard. Hitting a crow at 400 can be.

Heretic!

This thread reminded me of an article in American Rifleman 20+ years ago. I had to go look it up.
A well known gunwriter tested a custom rifle in 280 AI built by a famous gun builder known for his long range rifles.
The question he asked was "How much accuracy should one demand in a big game rifle?"
The builder didn't let a gun out of the shop that shot over 1 MOA for 3 shots, and most shot 1/2 MOA he claimed. The test rifle averaged .358" for the builder and .400" for the gun writer.
But he tested the rifles overall consistency by using the same backer consisting of two separate groups. One had 82 shots in it that measured 3.189", the other had 89 shots in 3.375", showing that a 1/2 MOA group could be anywhere within that 3" group under reasonable conditions.

Denton: This past year I've been using a new to me method of comparing rifles and loads, and I would like your opinion of the value of it. I shoot a ten shot group, mark the median elevation and windage point, then measure the distance of each shot from that point. What I compare between loads is the median value of each load.

Maybe. But you gotta admit that is smoking.

The condom would be.

I've got scoped rifles that I try to get as tiny a group as possible. But my favorite rifle to shoot lately is my 582 series Mini 14 with the factory irons. I can cut the center out of a pie plate at 50 yards, hit somewhere around the center at 100 yards, and hit it at 200 yards with factory 64 grain power points. I'll probably hunt with it this fall, just because....

I was just trying to point out that there are lots of good rifles out there and other than sentimental value there is no real reason to [bleep] with something that doesn't shoot well.

And I do not believe the .204 has been accepted by the AKC so that dog doesn't count as an entry. There is a competition being held in the Predator/Varmint forum if you would like to see a fair and unbiased evaluation of centerfire varmint rifles.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...8580564/1/My_17_Rem_Can_Beat_Up_Your_17_


Travis

To think an entire generation was waiting for Barbarian Dan to step in and kill them. You really let them down, BD.


Travis

Who is this?



Travis

My future wife.

Serious question?

Yes sir. I was born post-1890. Would appreciate the info.

Thanks.


Travis

Victoria Principal

Travis did not know how old you were..

It's Victoria Principal...star of the original TV show, "Dallas".

She sure looks different today.

I didn't know either.

If she's that old, 'flave can have her.

Travis,

Damn, you're right, the .204 hasn't been accepted by the AKC--and apparently neither has the Ruger American! Though that doesn't mean those dogs won't hunt....

Just ordered an "All-Weather" (stainless) Ruger American in .243. Thinking it might just put 10 into an inch or so at 100. That would kill a bunch of PD's at 300, and maybe even a deer!

SLM: Don't think either of you would want her now.

But you woulda.....then.

Two years ago after comfirming my 180gr Partition load for the pre '64 30-06, I loaded two boxes. The Fwt. was in a McMillan Edge and zeroed for 200yards. I brought it to range four times while playing with other stuff.
I shot one shot from a cold barrel off my backpack, prone at 200 yards. All four single shots were almost dead center on my 5x5 inch target. The first hunting season ended with a 235 yard downyhill shot at a cow and last years raghorn was at 75 yards.
All I need to do hereafter is to confirm the Leupie 6x36 with a shot or two and I'm all done.

She was one of the hottest babes on the tube in her prime. Thank God they always had a pool at the ranch........wow..

Yep. Just found a bunch of nude pics of her. Then.....nice

RD yes she was!

Ultimately, it really boils down to the 90% between the ears. That's all that counts.

Back in the 70s Robert Kleinguenther imported Voere Titan II barreled actions and built custom rifles out of Seguin Texas. He guaranteed 1/2" accuracy with standard cartridges and 1" with magnums. IMO any custom rifle that shoots worse than that is nothing but a POS- no excuse for anything worse today.

The Ruger American I can see gaining a very quick acceptance.

But that .204 is going to die a lingering horrible death. I'd appreciate it if you could stop writing about it.


Thanks,
Travis

Dallas? I remember my parents talking about that show when I wasn't born yet.

Good to know. Thanks Bob.


Travis

She's gonna love me. I can quote all the silent films.



Travis

How can you stand shooting that little?



Travis

Townsend Whelen was a big proponent of the ladder test to find the right node. That is typically the difference between an ok shooting rifle and a sub-moa.

Travis,

Trade ya: I won't write about the .204 if you quit running down the .17 Fireball. Just because some .17 isn't as "big" as your favorite doesn't mean it's not OK.

Or do you have to use the biggest .17 around to compensate for, uh, "other things"? That seems to be a pretty dinky method, though no doubt better than shooting a .270.

Travis,
I have plenty of others to shoot. Instead of dwelling on 3 shot and 5 shot groups, I decided on one with a cold barrel - just like how I want my hunt to go - one shot.

If anyone wants to really test their shooting, do a little fast walking or jog around the range facility. Then see how those groups look. A little real world hunt scenario is helpful.

I read a book by Mr. Whelen. Can't remember the name but it was really good.

Can't recall his writing about ladders.


Travis

It is hard to not love the .17 Rem. It's everything the Fireball will never be.

No need to compensate for other things because I have no regard for anybody that would gain pleasure from those other things.



Travis

I don't know anything about yogging or walking.



Travis

That would make him an idiot if he didn't do a ladder test.

Travis,

We need to drink some Tumbleweed together and get to the truth of many subjects. Though not the .270 versus 7x57. For that we need another large dog-trainer along, who brings free and decent bourbon.

Oh, and we could also invite Shrapnel, though he won't bring anything except free Coca-Cola, which he'll only dispense in tiny cans which say "not for sale or trade."

Ahem�and I was just introduced to Rebecca Creek, the new love of my life, which I will pick up in Texas in May. Meanwhile�ladder tests. JB: you remember what happened last time I got on a ladder without testing it first...

Tried googling the ladder but it came up proprietary...

Tom,

Well, that proves any sort of ladder test is untrustworthy.

And as for hunting accuracy�." if it'll hit a white rock, its good to go�"

Sir,

The 7x57 isn't a smokeless cartridge. The .270 is.
Ingwe only likes that round because he found so much brass for free after everybody on the battlefield died.

I love Shrap, but every time he leaves I can't find my wallet. It's bizarre.

You are all welcome here any time but I am starting to think the wallet thing is not a coincidence.


Travis

well then�.you wont miss it if its gone when we leave�..

Travis,

The ONLY thing non-coincidental about any Shrapnel encounter is a lighter wallet.

Next time, don't let him touch your azz....Just sayin

Here it is paddy melons, I defy anyone to pass a paddock full of them by and not start shooting them.

That looks like a thorny Tsama melon!

Why are you using medians, rather than means?

Ingwe,

Your bride was on the news the other night discussing a blood drive or something.

I yelled out "she lives with a dinosaur!" And the whole room accused me of being drunk and told me to STFU.

Anyway, I was thinking of you and thought you should know.


Travis

He also slaps me in the back of the head whenever I disagree with him. Starts to sting at the end of the day.


Travis

Thanks for thinking of me, I knew I had a warm fuzzy feeling for some reason. But the 'rest of the room' was right.STFU

If you can keep the grass from growing too high in June, I'll talk JB into a gopher/bourbon/pizza safari up there and we will come and take your wallet and drink your stuff.

I can think of two good reasons: 1) Medians are easier to do in the field. Slide a card down the target until it is over the center of the middle shot (or between the two middle shots if an even number of shots), and strike a horizontal line. Turn the card 90 degrees, do the same (might be a different shot) and strike a vertical line. That is the median position of the group. No calculations. 2) Medians are robust to outliers. A flier will not pull the median, as it does the mean. If you have a flier, it's probably a "more true" representation of "center" than the mean is. That's good for sighting in your scope.

I'm not quite clear on how he is evaluating "spread", but mean distance from center, median distance from center, standard deviation, and group size all convey essentially the same information in "different clothes".

That would mean a lot to me.


Travis

Nerd alert!



Travis

Who?

Where?

I can see the first reason. I'm not so sure I want the effect of fliers discounted in that way though.

While purely trying to test ammunition, and I'm sure I yanked a shot, I think I'd be more comfortable ignoring it entirely and then shooting another to replace it.

While testing the ammo, rifle, and myself as a "system" then the fliers should have full weight.

A lot depends on what you are trying to do.

If you are trying to sight in a rifle, and know that you have accidentally produced a flier, then it probably should not be included at all. So I think you are right in that.

But what about the self-induced flier you didn't catch? If you are sighting in a rifle, you probably want that ignored too. In that case, the median is the better choice.

There is practically no downside to using the median.

There is no one right way. A lot of it boils down to understanding how things work and choosing the way you like the best.

I totally agree, If there are several rifles that shoot under an inch at 500 yards I am from Missouri. I think there is such a variation in how one "bench" shoots that will cause a tolerable size in ones "groups". My buddy clamps his down in a vice like contraption and it is like shooting a machine. I like leaning over my Dodge truck with some pads of course my groups wont be like the clamped rifles... I am usually disappointed in over two inches at 100 for a scoped rifle and four for a peep sight.
But to have all of your rifles under an inch at 500???? This I would like to see. I would believe if this was in fact true: one should train the armed forces. Good job! Just braying.

Are you referencing my post?



Travis

I don't know if you're trying to add to what I posted to make it seem like I wrote it, or if you are trying to infer that I am drunk when I shoot.


Travis

He never said that.

Yep

Depends on whether you prefer head shots on table fare.

Deflave, what does moa at 500 mean? I assumed 1 inch at 500. If that is not the case I apologize for my ignorance.

5.24" at 500 yards

MOA means minute of angle, i.e., one sixtieth of a degree. This corresponds to approximately 1.047 inches at 100 yards, or a bit less than 5 1/4 inches at 500 yards.

This confusion between an inch and one MOA happens all the time. I mentioned here a few months ago that I had a custom 6.5-06 that would average 3 shots in 1/2 MOA out to 700 yards with the right load. Somebody immediately jumped on me, saying they'd never seen a rifle that would consistently shoot 1/2" groups at 700 yards.

I suspect the problem arises because so many people rarely shoot their rifles at anything except 100 yards.

Have even seen optics companies list the adjustments of the same model scopes as both 1/4" and 1/4 MOA in different places.

MOA @ 500yds would be about 5". 400yds would be 4", 300 about 3", etc.

No need to apologize. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and always forgive.



Travis

You lying sob. And you wonder why shrapnel is always smacking you upside your head and taking your wallet

You doubt the quality of a 'Flave Precision rifle?



Travis

Sorry for being AWOL and being tardy in response to this foul tip. An entire generation? That was near 45 years ago, you want me to cap another one? That's harsh.

My other gun is a LCP. I got it when I started hearing rumors about missing wallets. I hardly ever miss inside 3'. It's also good for fixing nail fungus.

If you just went and bought a gun that would shoot 1" at 500 you wouldn't have to explain all this crap.

My Dearest Dan,

I really don't remember writing anything about the BeeGays or you killing a generation. But when I read it just now, it really made me laugh.

I crack me the [bleep] up some days.



Travis

Yes, ColTravis, you are a riot, for sure.

You crack me up too flave. Hey by the way. 10 shot group with your big gun or go the [bleep] home If you can't kill a big game animal with a rifle like this, you better take up golf. Just sayin....





Proper POI trumps all....

Oh by the way "GFY"....

Have you seen my latest snapshot of shrapnel?



Travis

CZ? That's for the euro-trash that can't afford proper euro-trash.


Travis

I thought Sako was Euro trash???

It's proper euro-trash. Get your nomenclature straight.



Travis

Proper euro-trash says "Rigby's Special Big Bore for Big Game":




Sako trash:



Get it right fer Pete's sake.

BD

Dam you have a big gun BD.

If you get it hitting proper POI are you going to shoot a cow?

I don't shoot cows with that gun.

Funniest post I've seen in a while!

This REALLY needs to be accompanied by music. " Ode to Joy" springs to mind�.

My requirement is less than an inch at 100 yards off a bench. If it can't get under that at that range, I don't want it. My new custom, half inch or better at the range.

Reason for that being my personal limitations, I should only be concerned with my shooting and not the rifles. If the rifle is in question, it is fixed or gone. This new rifle is far better than I am and I don't have to worry about it at any range.

Monk's chanting..

That is really part of the question. Which is more significant. I've been using median thinking it would better reflect what I want to know by giving less emphasis to a single bad shot.

Consider these numbers: 2,2,2,3,100,100,100

Three is the median, but does it "best represent" the "middle" of these numbers?

3 best represents what to expect of the next shot more than 44 does. 3 doesn't represent well what the entire picture looks like.

Why? Those 100's are in there pretty strong.

And if we're doing something similar with the position of a group center, aren't we concerned with what the middle of the entire picture looks like?

The 43 in this example seems poor at predicting the future. Nothing was actually near or like the 43. That's the way I see it, but convince me I'm wrong.

I tested more than thirty loads from more than a dozen rifles this way. I compared the median, average, and group size with each other. The strongest correlation was between median and average as would be expected. The weakest was between median and total group size.

Mathman,

I'm no statistics expert, but I've seen enough data to be very suspicious of the data you listed. Looks like two different data sets somehow got combined, or there was some measurement error or some other problem. Bottom line is I wouldn't trust the data until I could figure out why 3 of the 7 data points were TWO orders of magnitude higher than the rest and the two "groups" of data within the data set were remarkably consistent in themselves but very different than those in the other "group." In fact, I would be wondering if the data represented a "zero" value at the low end (with some noise or some other phantom amount like nonlinearity at the bottom of a correlation curve showing instead of zero) and then values that were beyond the measurement capability of the system.

I know you were just throwing out some numbers for an example, but my point is blindly looking at a set of numbers is a trap that can lead to wrong conclusions. A lot more meaning can be derived from a data set when one knows something about the conditions under which the measurements were taken (e.g., gusty wind, a shot or two were pulled, etc.).

If I remember correctly, the mean and the median converge as the number of points in the data set increases. With a small number of data points, you have a strong possibility of running into "errors" with both the mean and median.

I'm not thinking of predicting the next shot as much as estimating the center of the distribution being sampled. So for a group I need the means in x and y directions. From the mean point I can them measure the radius to each individual shot. Once I have that number for each shot I can calculate mean radius, or root mean square radius.

The data was deliberately contrived to illustrate a problem with using the median.

It's not a problem with the median, any more than it is a problem with the mean to say that 44.14 represents the data set. The problem is in the nature of the data set, which is not homogeneous and independent. It is highly autocorrelated. It doesn't matter which descriptive statistic you use. You're screwed.

For homogeneous and independent data, it matters very little whether you use mean or median, unless you have outliers you want to more or less ignore. Median is frequently much easier to get when in the field.

Typical Campfire thread...

WGAF?!?!? If your groups are so bad you're worried about mean vs median, you got bigger problems!

Does this have anything to do with cankles?

I know nothink!

More concerned with my cold bore shot.

Aren't we all?

Amen...

WTF are cankles? That sounds like a question I don't want the answer to........

This thread is worthless without pictures. So....

I shoot three shot groups at one hundred yards and require multiple groups on the same outing to stay inside 1 1/2". If all is good I will go hunting. I do shoot some out to 300 yards at the range but work hard to keep my field shots inside 300. If I miss an opportunity (read do not take the shot), oh well, that's hunting. Most all I own will do better but it is from luck more than shooting the pizz out of the rifle to find the micro-load. Haven't had much trouble at all hitting stuff. Prior to my BC grizzly hunt I decided to give the 225 gr AB a go in my 338-06. First outing with VV-N550 and I was done. A lucky day.

Ten shots rapid fire from my AR off the bench.(Dot is 3/4".) Sometimes three shot groups are your friend, sometimes they are your enemy. Same could be said of any sample. If you only fired 3 shots and two of those happened to be the fliers in the pic below, you might think your gun was a turd. Pretty easy to conclude where this gun wants to shoot based on the other 8. That being said, who only shoots one 3 shot group to make a claim about accuracy? I usually shoot three shot groups, but shoot a lot of three shot groups before I conclude what a gun is capable of.

I prefer three shot groups with sporters also, wanting to see several at different ranges before I know it to be "the load". Even then, I've been known to foul up a group here and there with a flier, especially in the wind at 300-400yds. It's how the gun/load behaves most of the time that matters, as I'm honestly not as consistent as my equipment.

That being said, if I have the itch to try a new bullet or a new rifle and time is short, I'll hunt something that gives me a quick group or two at 1-1.5". Sometimes things don't have to be tweaked and tested to the max. It all depends on your goals.

Something to read on the subject: http://www.chuckhawks.com/practical_accuracy.htm

I don't agree with Hawk's logic:

"The hunter with a long range rifle capable of taking medium game at 300 yards (such as a 6mm Remington, .25-06, .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum or .300 Winchester Magnum), needs a rifle that averages 2 MOA groups. Those 2" groups at 100 yards will open to 6" at 300 yards. Very few hunters can take advantage of more accuracy than that in the field, so 2 MOA represents the practical limit of accuracy for most hunters. I am sure that Col. Whelen would have classified such a rifle as very "interesting." Of course, it is nice if Old Betsy will shoot even smaller groups at the rifle range, but it is simply not necessary from a practical standpoint."

He ignores the concept of error stacking. If my gun shoots 2 MOA, and I add 2 MOA of wiggle, all of a sudden I have 4 MOA groups, which would be 12" at 300 yds. Add another MOA of wind correction error, and things are that much worse.

I like to reasonably minimize the error my guns generate (like to be around 1 MOA or better) because I know I am going to add my own.

I wonder if the general benchmark of 1 moa would be different if 1 moa didn't conveniently work out as very near to 1 inch at 100 yards?

We do like symmetry and even numbers don't we?

For those of us that use metric, I am afraid 25.4mm at 91 metres doesn't quite have the same ring to it!

No, but 30 mm at 100 meters gets real close.. .143" at 109.4 yards.

Utah,

In my experience the largest "error stacking" with most hunters an handloaders is caused by depending on 3-shot groups as the accuracy standard of their rifle and ammo.

The reason most see so many "fliers" at 300 yards is because 3-shot groups are inadequate. This is easily demonstrated by shooting several 3-shot groups at 100 yards, each on a different target, but putting each target up in the same position over a blank sheet of paper. The result of all those 3-shot groups will be a far better demonstration of the rifle's actual accuracy.

Partly that's because it's rare to see anybody put out wind flags on a range. In the past five years, in fact, I've seen exactly one other shooter use wind flags at the one semi-public range I use. Without shooting groups of more than three shots AND using wind flags, any claims about MOA rifles are theoretical--as are notions about what's required to consistently hit a deer in the lungs at 300 yards.

I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness....one more time: Variation does not stack linearly. This is not intuitively obvious. In fact, it is the opposite of intuitively obvious. Yet it has very important consequences for firearm accuracy.



This is exactly how practically everyone interprets the situation. However, reality is actually more kind to the shooter.

If your firearm has 2 MOA of wiggle, and you have 2 MOA of wiggle, and there is no wind your wiggles will stack up to 2.8 MOA rather than 4 MOA. If the wind adds another 1 MOA of wiggle, your groups are 3 MOA.

More realistically, if you have 4 MOA of shooter wiggle, and your gun has 2 MOA of wiggle, your groups will be 4.5 MOA. The difference between a 2 MOA gun and a 0 MOA (perfect) gun in this case is a trifle under .5 MOA.

If one of the sources of variation is larger than the rest, it alone almost completely determines the total variation. That is why you have to find the single largest source, and kill it, rather than than fiddle with the lesser sources of variation which will make almost no contribution to total variation.

John is correct in his statements about 3 shot groups. A single 3 shot group has very little predictive power as to what the next group of shots will look like.

I think part of the problem is psychological. Somebody shoots dozen groups, figures that the best of them truly represents the gun, and that the poorer groups were the result of some kind of shooter error. If the shooter does everything perfectly every time, there will still be substantial variation in group size. A single group of (for example) 3 or 5 shots is a poor indicator of future performance. If you shoot enough groups, even the worst sewer pipe barrel will occasionally produce a .5 MOA group.

I agree with what Denton says,although I could never explain as articulately.I typically shoot groups a 100 yards to get a feel for things and to zero.I then usually go to 300 yards and shoot field prone(no rear bag and over a pack or some other object).

I have been doing things this way for years because there are no front and rear bags in the field.

Over the years I have shot many groups ranging from 2-4 inches at that distance,and it has not mattered greatly if the rifle was a 5/8" tack driver, or a 1.5 inch rifle for 3 shots at 100 (although sometimes I will shoot 8-10 shots from a rifle at 100 if it is new to me).But over the years,I've determined that I should be able to "hold" into about an MOA under those conditions

To be perfectly honest, if I missed the lungs of a deer at 300-400 yards with even a 2 MOA rifle, I would be very surprised.

The fact that MD, Denton and Bob know what they are writing about can easily be proven with two .22lr rifles. One that shoots excellent and one that shoots average.

Dial them in at 50 yards, adjust the sights for 75 or 100yards and then start shooting pop/soda cans, clay targets or resulting pieces of clay targets from field positions. Day-in, day-out the hit ratio difference will be very small if any.

The issue with "groups" is that the first shot is always a freebie as all one shot groups are equal. For a hunting rifle, the first shot is the most important. How close to point of aim a rifle/shooter can place that first shot and how close to point of aim all the subsequent shots hit means more to me than "group size".

I put a new barrel on my AR last week and finally had things dry out enough to fine tune the bipod/no rear bag zero at 100yds shooting the 70gr VLD.

Dots were shot from bottom left to top right.
After first 3 shot string scope was adjusted down 1/3 MOA
After second 3 shot string scope was adjusted left 1/4 MOA
I lost some focus on the middle 2 strings.



While the "group size" of the middle targets was not horrible the high shots stand out and show more of a shooter issue and not a rifle issue.

In other words I think I get more feedback per shot on both my shooting and the rifle by shooting to the point of aim than just shooting a "group" somewhere on the paper.

For me this has been an interesting topic. So far my "take away" has been that three shot groups are a very poor predictor of the true accuracy potential, cold bore first shots are very important, stacking error is not simple addition, true .5" shooting hunting rifles are almost non existent and tack diving accuracy isn't needed to cleaning take deer and such out to 400yds or so. What did I leave out ?

Thinking nothing. Except perhaps moving away from the bench frequently.

John;
Good morning to you sir, I trust this chilly Friday morning finds you acceptably well - and warm enough.

Thanks for your last post as when I read it in context with the previous posts from JB, Denton and BobinNH it gelled a few concepts for me personally.

Way back in the dark ages when I was absorbed with group shooting an article by I believe Mike Venturino suggested more or less that only the first two shots from a cold, clean hunting rifle barrel were meaningful.

I recall being more than a tad nonplussed by that revelation as it both made sense and turned my then current theories on their collective ears.....

Anyway John, of all the rifles we've had pass through our hands over the decades in between then and now, the ones that will plant the first two shots from a cold barrel where we want them are the ones that get taken out hunting anymore.

I'll note that at this point in our hunting we don't generally shoot that far compared to many folks here, but if we do begin down that path a rifle that will hit where I need it to with the first round will be the one that goes up the mountain behind the house come fall.

Thanks again for your post John and the rest of our 'Fire cyber friends as well. All the best to you all this weekend.

Dwayne

Yeah, there's a difference between shooting for score and shooting for group. But a rifle that can't group isn't going to shoot a high score. Unless of course you're just a very lucky bad shot.



Travis

John: Agreed.

Rhetorical question: Does anyonebother practicing with a rifle that isn't zeroed?

True that. ^
Lots of guys never practice field shooting until they're in the field.
Have a good friend that's a prime example. He shoots circles around me at the range but hits about one out of ten when we're Coyote hunting.

Same back at ya, Dwayne





Travis,

Good point on calling it "shooting for score". I would point out that hunting rifles are shot for score while hunting.

I figure why not shoot for score all the time and get more feedback on each shot.

Shooting groups vs shooting for score. Somebody needs to write an article.

Another good point, Bob.

Shooting for score with a hunting rifle is often referred to as a "thing hitter" by Steelhead.

I'm one of those guys that has rifles that not only group well, but always hit things. It's almost like they go hand in hand.

But I know you already know this spray tannin' sumbitch.



Travis

Sometimes I do. Zeroing is just twisting the knobbies.

I still get to practice breathing, hold, sight picture, and trigger pull.

I'm one of the best shots I know of and don't really give a tinker's damn about shooting groups. I would rather shoot stuff and realize that even the best shooters miss once in awhile...

fishead we all do at some point of course and it helps on the mechanics....until we get serious about the practice end of things, ie "hitting", not just shooting groups.....,which comes sooner rather than later for me, because I lack the patience for a lot of load tweaking.

I'm lucky enough to have an underground range at my club, so wind is not a factor. With high velocity rounds like my .22-250, .257 Wthby or .243 with light bullets, I shoot 3 shot groups to avoid waiting forever for barrels to cool. But I do place the targets in the same spot as it is revealing when you take that third target off and see what that 9 shot group looks like. We use target stapled to cardboard backing, hanging from a steel frame, and I put a new sheet of brown paper on the cardboard before shooting. I then draw a line along the top of the first target and mark the corners so the others go in the same place.

Most of the time, I don't get more than a couple of shots at game if the first one isn't good.

I NEVER, repeat NEVER take a rifle hunting with a 'CLEAN' barrel. By that I mean it has to be shot at least TWICE to powder foul the bll. for the POI (zero) to be correct.

I can give MANY examples of myself or friends checking for zero AFTER cleaning the barrel and the first and sometimes second shot being OFF. Sometimes it's a matter of 1" or so, sometimes noticeably more. It's also NOT consistently hi, low, right, or left.

You have to shoot it ON a clean bore to find out where it is. Then slowly shoot 2-3 more and see IF you're back to zero +.

Now, I totally agree that the MOST important thing is the FIRST and second shot being "on" with a cold barrel.

This is my mileage>>>>YMMV.

I never hunt with a clean barrel.



P

For my purposes hitting things is what it is all about. After zeroing and logging the drop w/ the rounds I want to carry I practice in the field. I am lucky enough to live where I can be in the hills in an hour. I like to take out a few 6"" steel gongs and place them out from 100-350 yds. I then practice ranging and shooting them from various positions to see what I can actually do in the field w/ whatever wind the day gives me. I believe I can responsibly hunt at the ranges I can consistently keep rounds in 6". I am not a great shot but I enjoy working at it. I feel really good when I can ring the gong 3 times in a row past 400 yards. I really enjoy being outside and shooting and try to do it weekly. It gives me a lot of confidence when hunting. Another great topic, this is a great site.

mike r

I never knew this hunting rifle accuracy thing was so elusive. I shoot DBC treated HCR and Tikka 695 7mags, and a Tikka 7-08 primarily. I can't say there's much difference between a "fouler" shot, and shots 2-5, especially since I'm shooting at a 10" kill zone. I kind of gotta agree with that MV guy. Shot #1 is where the money's at.

Cold bore shot should be called cold brain shot.....

Cold bore shot = urban myth. If I have a rifle that "throws" the first shot, the barrel gets taken off and thrown in the garbage.



This challenge turned out exactly as I thought it would when I did it last summer with a bunch of other shooters over a five day period on another site.

I always hunt with a cold, lightly fouled barrel, when possible. I don't believe the "cold" part of the equation causes much trouble. It's the "clean" part, because clean barrels often aren't. Depending on who's doing the maintenance, there can be a lot of leftover solvent, oil, etc. in the barrel, and that's where some come to grief.

K W -

YEP!! +1

Yeah right scenar....WTH do you know?

Have you ever wondered why no one asks for your help?

Obviously your mileage varies.

I proved that to myself several times before becoming convinced. I showed it to many shooting friends AS they shot their own rifles on a CLEAN barrel.

If I insulted a friend, that wasn't my intention but what I said is true.

I've only owned 4 rifles,they've all shot the same whether it's the 1st shot or the 50th.
I guess my mileage varied too.

Do you guys really clean barrels or are you just being silly-nillys?



Travis

Maw, Maw, 'flave is calling names again!

Jeez, somebody kill this thing. Where is Rick when you need him?

Depends on if I'm shooting groups or trying to hit things.

Down this way things trend wet more often than not. Probably more barrels ruined down here from failure to clean than you can shake a stick at. Cold bore clean is a good reference for starters...in this AO.

Sometimes the right bullets will keep you from screwing up. Or worse.



Get with the program dammmit!

I told him to tend to the McMillan orders while I make sure the website isn't gay.



Travis

Nice screwdrivers BD!



Travis

Always here to help.

I plan to visit FL in August. Perhaps you could be available so mini-flave can shake your hand and steal what you are not watching.

It would mean a lot to he and I both.


Travis

That would be good.

I'm faster than Doc Holiday.

Love,

BD

FL is miserable in August.

Unless you can steal good schitt�.

Wasting time cleaning a 'dirty' barrel ranks right up there with washing the pickup.



I guess maybe every 400-500 rounds maybe clean it just to see how dirty it is?

Or not.

I do it every May, whether it needs it or not...

I was thinking August.... If a guy was really bored.



Wife's car is a little different, I tell her to wash that thing at least twice a month...grin

She probably washes it before she takes it to the car wash...

It's spotless!

Was at a skeet match some years back and by chance had a guest with me that decided he wanted to shoot, so I gave him my gun and borrowed one from the facility owner. Was a Beretta 390 12 bore. I took a look and sez to him "Roni, when was the last time you cleaned this thing?" He looked puzzled. "Dan, it's not even broke in yet. Might only have 12K rounds thru it."

It still put most of its shot in the right place as I recall. Inside of the receiver looked like it was packed with shredded tires.

All of which leads me to believe that all guns are sufficiently accurate for hunting to some range unique to the gun and shooter. What that range is I will not speculate.

I use a method that I learned in tactical rifle school and adapted for hunting. I have 6 50 yard pistol targets, NRA B-6. These are marked 100-1, 200-1, 300-1, 100-2, 200-2 and so on.

After I've developed the best load, each time I go out I will set up two of those targets and a distance randomly. The first target is the clean cold bore shot, the second is the follow up. Over time a group is developed that tells you how effective your rifle is in actual hunting. That is YOU and your rifle.

Just like a sniper rifle, you can't really judge by hot bore shooting. Nor can you take shots to warm up on technique.

With my HB rifles I keep a range book.

Dan;
Top of the morning to you sir, I trust this finds you well and warmer than we are right at present.

Before I go on I've got to say I'm a big fan of the Phillips head projectiles - I mean they just gotta work, you know?

We live in a semi desert up here, but I have seen barrels pitted with rust when they were brought in from say -20� outside, allowed to sweat as they warmed up as steel is wont to do and then not have the bore swabbed.

While I've not done extensive testing on that little issue, I did a wee bit and found that clean barrels didn't produce rust colored patches near as often as barrels that had been shot more than a few times.

I'll admit I don't clean my non-soot burning firearms as often as I used to anymore - but I do recall the rusty patches and pitted barrels quite clearly.

Anyway, as always the mileage varies from location to location as well as with the user I suspect Dan.

If however we can save a new shooter or two the heartburn of a pitted barrel, then that's cool too. Depending upon current income levels at the time barrels can be pocket change or unattainable.

All the best to you this weekend sir.

Dwayne

True words Dwayne. I don't oft have the chance to hunt in real cold weather then move directly to a warm home or camp house. But in the past I learned (one the first such night) about that.

This was before stainless steel was invented as I recall.

Dan

It's 84 right now and sunny. Supposed to get down to a chilly 62 tonight, then back up to about the same tomorrow. Spring came this week and will go by month's end, and then the summer heat will begin. July is hot, August is worse, and September is worser (I threw that word in for 'flave). Then fall comes again and we're back to 84/62. It's a brutal cycle to have to live with.

Mike

Yeah, that 62 degrees at night sounds brutal�..

Supposed to be 48* here tonight.

Amen and to add to it, a good barrel/bedding regardless of contour will not spray them after a couple of rounds. Those get thrown away too.

I can agree with that. Of course someone that leaves oil in the bore can have that issue. A patch of mineral spirits followed by a dry patch takes care of that.

Back in the day, the mid 90's, we had to shoot monthly. Just a few rounds. We took a single target once a month and fired that CBS on it with a bi-pod then dated it a filed it away. That was suppose to be used in case it became issue in court. The shot, with all others was also recorded in the range book along with detailed weather and wind references. The book, of course, is also public record and useable in court.

What a monumental waste of [bleep] time.


Travis

Yes, most likely, but here CYA rules and we do a lot of crap and documentation for that purpose.

I know nothing in regards to CYA but I hope those policies worked for everybody involved.



Travis

CYA, Cover Your Azz. In this case somebody conceivably might call the qualifications of the rifleman in question. Somebody conceived that there could be a challenge there and made the rule.There is documentation on every little stupid thing built around CYA.

CYA with 5 shots or does it take more?

No,less, one round. One round on a hostage taker, in the head for a no reaction shot (even though that is really a fallacy, no thoughtful reaction but an autonomic one can still happen, a reflex reaction)

Riot situation is usually one shot also. In observation, once organization takes place, you can identify the leader and his second. That is a chest shot, no need for a head shot since nobody is in direct danger from him. Then it's cover on the reaction, anyone that is an immediate threat to another. That includes covering an entry team, which again is chest shots. The only reasons for a head shot is if the person has a hostage in hand and there is no other option or if the head is the only part exposed.

A prison situation is different than a police situation in that you know it's in a fixed location. If a rifleman in a prison has done his job, as I did, he already has all his lay points figured and ranges shot. Then he shoots those ranges and has recorded the dope for each. Unlike a police situation, a prison is a fixed known position.

If the situation is inside a building then the rifleman becomes an observer. All the windows are thick plate hardened glass and if the window does not have bars, which are usually 4 inch steel pipe that is horizontal, it is wired. If you tried a shot with the target any distance inside the chance of hitting it is pure luck. A 168 grain HPBT completely fragments on that glass. (yes, we tested it) Plus the fact that the first thing inmates will do is cover the windows with blankets, that is to prevent us from seeing in and to impede the insertion of gas.

We used the 308 in a Rem 700 HB. I thought that a poor choice. If I do fire a round everybody knows instantly. That could be like touching a match to a powder keg. Since ranges beyond about 125 yards are rare, and glass penetration is not a consideration, something along the lines of a fully suppressed rifle in 300 Whisper would would better. I don't want to announce that someone just got shot, I want the confusion long enough for an entry team to get in.

If you plink 'em in the neck there is no autonomic reflex. It's a smaller target than the ass and you have to hit bone.

I'd sat the risk of a miss is way too high on that. And really, with a gun in his hand there is no real shot that can be counted on to prevent a reflex pull on a trigger.

In prison it is different, we are talking an edged weapon. Preventing him from doing a slice or a stab is a lot easier than preventing that 4 pound pull with one finger.

You folks should spend less time shooting and more time cyphering. Ought from ought is naught...It'll tighten your groups.



Not too many years ago, out of the box, big game hunting rifles were shooting 1.5 to 2 inches at 100 yd. Handloads could reduce that to about an inch or an inch and a half. Smaller calibers like the 223 could often manage .75 to 1 inch from the factory. That's changed. With the invention of the Internets, groups have shrunk considerably. I never realized how much influence Bill Gates and his cybergeeks truly had!

Gun companies say that technological improvements have made modern firearms manufacturing more consistent. Ammunition companies claim that cartridge assembly has improved. There's really no reason to doubt their assertions, but these are just two of the three things that produce superb accuracy. People are the third part and affect the result more so than anything else. And boy, have humans ever had an impact!

According to the Internets, group size has gone down markedly over the last twenty years. You can find the evidence by opening your browser and googling rifle performance. You'll read hundreds of testimonials, complete with pictures and eye witnesses. Good old cyberspace!

With all that proof, we must accept that humans have become better. We have evolved. After all, change is what life on this rock is about. But I do not think that humans have become better shots. I think that we have become better story tellers. Praise be to "The Google"!

Here's my proof: Despite manufacturing short cuts, poor quality control and the increased use of polymers, groups have continued to shrink. Strange isn't it? Regardless of the complaints from hunters and shooters about crappy, flexible stocks, heavy, lawyer proof triggers and so-so stock/action fit, I keep reading about out of the box accuracy being better than ever before. I read this stuff on hunting and shooting forums...on the Internets.

Some might say that you can't have it both ways. Someone must be telling fibs, because you cannot have poorly made, butt ugly, ill fitting rifles that shoot better groups than competition guns!

Some might also say that at the rate we're going, we should be bug holing with econo-guns by the end of the decade. It sure looks that way. It also seems that we'll be doing it with 10 lb trigger pulls, using assemblies made from pot metal parts, housed in ugly, limp and shoddily made plastic stocks. All this will be attached to less metallic versions of traditional rifle actions, assembled by numpties, using poorly constructed, off shore parts. Wow! And you know what? This has to be true because the evidence is floating around in cyberspace.

It sure is amazing. The worse rifles get, the better they shoot!

I dunno Steve. How'd you define "superb accuracy"?

And I gave up evolving about 20 years back. Din't see the point since I was doing amazing things with a Red Ryder.

In a nutshell, superb accuracy would best be described as accuracy that is superb.

Sadly, Americans cannot fashion the most accurate rifles anymore. They have lost the skills required to create quality components and assemble a true tackdriver. I'm sorry to be the one to drop this bombshell, but I suspect some of you already knew this.

A truely accurate, modern rifle starts by selecting just the right stock made from top grade polymers and plasti-metal blends. These high grade materials don't just happen. Years of development went into them.

Plastic is the new metal. It's also the new wood.

Polymers are grown from specially developed hybrid monomer plants. Like wood, there are several grades of polymer. They actually started out by experimenting with soya and canola - the firearms industry has always been environmentally friendly - but the engineers kept licking the stocks. The biodegradable stock was half a good idea, but the construction was too tasty and the idea was quickly abandoned. So much for saving the planet.

At any rate, the Far East is THE spot to grow the best, quality strains of stock mono (that's industry talk for monomers). The ground there is just right for this. They plant them in modified, nylon impregnated soil. That's because monomers will bind to almost anything and grow like weeds. The addition of nylon into the soil acts as a natural lubricant that prevents stickage.

Presently, there are three grades of stock polymers - Good, Better and Betterest. Using the betterest grade, there's no need to bed rifle actions anymore. Betterest grade poly features "molecular anti-bind technology", applied at strategic spots along the action to prevent pressure points. You cannot do this with wood or aluminum!

From here, we get into the truly technical. I have to be careful what I say because of patent considerations. Many countries in the Far East jealously guard their secrets and I wouldn't want to be sued for divulging chemical formulas or exposing confidential manufacturing methods. The Far East takes a very dim view of anyone, or any country that steals their technology!

I'm so tempted to say ... B S

so I'll just say .... S R and let it go at that.


The ONLY foreign rifle I have is a Tikka T3 Lite so it's a boat paddle.

ALL the others are 'merican' made and are capable of shooting better than I can.

I do NOT keep any rifle that I can't get " 1 " accuracy or better.

There is the issue of how the rifle will shoot day in and day out in response to both the shooters ability and the ability of the rifle to utilize its group size.

As far as I"m concerned, the best accuracy is what I"m after. Since I bring error to the platform as do conditions that, while they can be compensated for, generally are not ever totally clear cut in their value.

So one could say a rifle at its best groups 2 moa. I as a shooter, and tested by laser trainers, in a sling prone add about .3 moa to that. IMHO if you averaged actual field shots in a hurry, I bet I add 1-2 moa in reality. And then you add the shooting conditions factor, IE you could miss a condition call by 1-2 moa... thats 6 moa fairly quickly as a possible.

Thats one reason I strive to make ALL of the components the best they can be, me and my condition reading included.

So that one has the least amount of error as a package.

These guys were always around, as I'm sure you're well aware of , they just have a more readily available medium for transporting these ideas

They were stuck in gun shops, gun clubs, and coffee shops before! I blame Bill Gates also... or did Al Gore invent the internet?

I think the Chinese invented the Internets to influence the 1976 US presdiential election. Up until Carter came along, you never heard of the Internets. Coincidence?

I think you're on to something there...

I get it, thanks.

Glad you mentioned the wood/biodegradable part of the discussion. My newest rifle has wood 24/7. It is biodegradable from the perspective of termites, but there seems to be a deterrent in the form of sulfur residue. Will let you know how this works out in 30-40 years or so. I licked it a few times but wasn't inspired to go further due the faint trace of oils and such.

I don't know if my strategy is sound, but in the rush to S/S guns it seems a fair number of wood wearing CM barreled guns are available at fair prices. It is a market niche that has been kind to me. To be fair, I'm wondering what all the brouhaha is about over this accuracy thing. I have never seen a critter with a German ring target tat on it's vital zone and to date have been unsuccessful in conjuring an edible recipe for paper with the X-ring shot out of it.

Another point that is bothersome goes to this 'inherently accurate' concept. I send pears every night hoping someone will define that for me. Some point to the 6mm PPC and I ask how it does at 1,000 yards. They snarl. They point out the things that can be done with an F Class gun and the 6.5x284 at 1,000 yards and I ask how that works outside the Longbranch at high noon. They snarl again. I ask what cartridge they prefer for offhand in an open class bolt gun and they start throwing stuff at me. Ingrates.



That right there is my .17 cal hog killer.



Best,

DD

There's no such thing as inherent accuracy. There is such a thing as inherited accuracy, as these pictures clearly demonstrate. Inherited accuracy has proven to be the best and longest lasting.



Did you know that side by side shotguns actually were invented by mistake? Until the mid 1800s, there were only over and under shotguns. Side by sides appeared after my great, great grandfather went out hunting for quail and fell over. He took his first quail "on his side". Poof! Another firearms type was born.

I'm glad that your love of shotguns is paying off in cost savings. Older shotguns are things of beauty. They rest comfortably in the hands and need no purposeful manipulation to hit what they're aimed at.

That is a handsome rifle. Just watch what chemicals you get on the wood. You don't want it to smell like a well oiled sock. I had a similarly stocked rifle once. The wood burl my grandfather used was cut from a spaghetti tree. He wasn't Italian, but loved to hunt tomatoes in northern Italy. Sadly, WWI broke out and he was forced to relocate to Romania.

I do love my shotguns. I was raised shooting them and inherited a lot of accuracy from Gramps. He wore out a LC Smith 16 shooting quail and was working on the second when he passed. Few birds survived his focus.

I became afflicted by rifles much later in life. It has been an inherently problematic endeavor.

Concerning rifle accuracy (remember that discussion?), small groups at 100 yards just tell me the rifle is worth testing at longer ranges, such as will be encountered while hunting. I don't profess to be a "long-range hunter", but I want to know that my first bullet will land within about 3 inches of the intended spot out to 300 yards or so, and even out to 400 with certain rifles. If the group at 100 yards is already 4 inches, chances are that it will not get better at longer ranges. Such a rifle is not automatically eliminated from the herd, but a man needs to know his, and his rifle's, limitations. Also, group size at 100 yards is not a foolproof automatic indication of what the rifle will do at 300 or 400. That can only be determined by actually shooting at 300 or 400 yards, as most knowledgable loonies here already understand.

Emphasis mine and added.

I object your Honor. There is no evidence that the alleged 'knowledgeable loonies' are knowledgeable or loonies inasmuch as there has been no examination. There has been no testimony as to where the average person, or looney (if it please the court) would find a place to shoot 300 or 400 yards. This implies that the average looney, not to be confused with the 'knowledgeable looney', has any recourse for said determination.

The argument is neither answered or settled, and it is requested this discussion be recessed for the evening semi-dressed tart extravaganza.

I had a suspicion that this thread would go in the toilet.

DD....er....Counselor.....do you mean to state to the Court that not all rifle loonies actually shoot at 300-400 yards to verify accuracy potential of their rifles??

100 yard 3 shot groups are "it"?

Case (thread) closed, then.

Let the extravaganza commence.

And it went there!

Then one last post before it is abandoned.


My firearms do what they do and it is up to me to work with-in those limitations.

there is a reason Pat holds his long range Ice Breaker shoot out here in the spring.....aint that hard to find a place to shoot to a 1000 yards or more if you really want to.....find yourself a nice straight coulee and have at it...watched guys take their rifles out to a mile at Pats shoot.....one guy, MontanaMarine, was taking his 30-06 out that far.....granted i aint one of the long range shooters on this board, yet, but looking at getting in on it because the country up here makes finding a spot to practice easy....

Exactly.


And practice shows you limitations instantly. Sometimes it is pretty humbling but that is a good thing. Work within your skill level when hunting, practice further out.

First clue was maybe a couple dozen pages or there abouts?

Well, IMO, FWIW, a fella either knows the shot will connect or he's sending it on a wing and a prayer. Doesn't much matter what the distance is, or anything else. If he KNOWS, it's because he has done his homework. Otherwise it's all guess and by golly. MOA or fractions/multiples thereof is nice and all that, but the question is, "Can you make the shot?" Yes or No? There is no in between.

The problem with Far East stocks is all the hippies smokin' them. Best high this side of Maui Wowie and Humboldt County ThunderIjustforgot.


P

Anybody got a Hostess fruit pie?


P

No, but if you can hold minute of waffle iron throw some Pillsbury cinnamon rolls on the deck and rock on.

When I first started hunting, I was told by my mentor that to cleanly take a Whitetail you had to able to hit a dinner plate offhand at 100 yards reliably. Seemed to work quite well in fact. Now days any rifle, that can not get to about MOA is a disappointment. Do I need that accuracy probably not.

And paper dinner plates is all ya needs. If ya can hits one at the range you expects game to be, youse are goodly.



Gentlemen, please be seated. We'll be taking questions now.



Excuse me, Thomas Atkinson, Beardsley Nugget. I'm the sports editor. I have a question. I recently bought a new pound of H4350. I believe that it is made by Hornady. The can does not look the same as the can that I was using. I bought the old can in the 1960s at a gunshow in Seemyville. It's a great show, even if the arena is a bit small. Anyway, it wasn't a full can, but the old man that was selling it has been in attendance there for years, so I trust him.

I'm shooting a 303 with 180 grain bullets. I bought the rifle in 1959 at Sears. I'm not really sure what the make of it is. All I know is it cost me $19. It might have been a sale.

My question concerns this new pound of powder and the wind. Because I've got fresh powder, will a five or six mile per hour quartering wind have the same affect on the bullet as the old propellant? I'm down to four lead tipped bullets and may have to switch over to plastic tipped bullets. Do they really make plastic tipped bullets? An acquaintance of mine says that's all you can get. Is he pulling my leg? Wouldn't they melt going down the barrel? Wouldn't that affect accuracy? The melting part I mean.

Would the wind affect the plastic tipped bullets more than the lead? Lead is heavier than plastic, after all. My buddy reminded me that a half ounce of plastic definitely weighs less than a half ounce of lead, so that's got to affect the trajectory, right?

Cool old pics Steve.

One non-smoker in the bunch.

Blow up the picture and look between his fingertips.

good to see you posting a bunch Steve.....always enjoyed your humor....

Thanks guys.

These photos prove that if we shoot less and smoke more, we will all be successful in the field.

Yep, I see it now. Heck of a lot handier than one of those pipes, I'd say, in spite of how neat they look.

I think that was the design philosophy behind the F4 Phantom.

Ah J79s. I was with 104s for four years. They used one J79. I always thought that Phantoms smoked more because of the grade of fuel used.

We had one fellow who used to smoke when he flew. More than once, servicing technicians returned his bean bag ashtray - complete with two butts in it. That guy must have smoked a lot, considering the time in the air was less than an hour without external tanks.

439 Sqn plane in Germany. Not my old unit, but the paint scheme was better than 441 Sqn. This was painted up for a Tiger Meet. The 439 Sqn sqn slogan was "Fangs of Death", which changed to "[bleep] of Death' of course.

Dayum, that's almost an Ingwe paint job!

Always thought the Starfighter was a beauty...never could decide which I preferred most, the 104 or the B58. Sleeksters by any measure.

So Steve, I was at the range today and one of the projects was a 50-60s vintage Savage 24; .30-30/20. Shooting lead at about 1600 fps, two slightly different charges of SR4759. 2 Groups of 5 for each charge @ 50 yds were 3" for 16 grains and 2" for 16.5 grains. 311041 GC, LLA lube at 2.57" OAL. 9# trigger and fired on my two hind feet (THF). The 16 grain charge printed to POA while the 16.5 went to the 4 o'clock and 4" from POA.

The 20 bore shoots a very loose pattern of #3 buck at 25 yds.

It was a gorgeous day!

Did I do anything that was statistically significant? Can I kill hogs at 10 yards with this rig?

Dan

PS: I would strap on a 104 in a heartbeat if it wasn't a German crater maker.

You're undergunned. Everyone knows a 30-30 won't take hogs. Use the 20 ga instead with shot bigger than No.6.



They didn't call them widowmakers fer nothin'.

The CO of my old sqn was on final approach, but was coming in too hot. I guess he wanted to be on the drag chute and brakes quickly, so when he touched down, his left hand was ready to yank the chute handle. He pulled, the chute came out and it ripped off the back.

I thought that he would lift off, do a loop and try landing a second time. Although this sounds laughable in a 104, some aerodynamic braking and liberal use of the brakes would have stopped him before he ran out of runway. But he didn't do that.

No doubt panic set in. He was screaming down the runway much too fast and knew that he'd have to take the barrier. He went for his arrestor hook button, but hit the tip tank jettison instead. Two tanks tumbled gracefully through the air and littered the grass. Oops! Then he managed to find the arrestor hook.

Except that this was a 104. He was too late with the hook and the hoof bounced a couple of times off the runway, jumping the cable. He buried his plane nose first into the dirt mound off the end of the runway. Luckily, no one was hurt. He was a Lt.Col then, but retired a Lieut.Gen.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Pride!

Yeah! Drinks all 'round!

Oh Jesus...I think I just cracked a rib!

We should have drinks some week.

D

Some time I'll tell you about the guy who decided to drive his plane off the end of the runway into a culvert in Deci, Sardinia. (Decimomannu Air Base, Italia)

You know, I don't like to speak ill of most other countries, but next to France, well, the Italians sure are different.

Vietato fumare! Except around flammable things like gas, oil and other stuff...

I have had a few skinny barreled rifles that would shoot under an inch at a hunnert for three shot groups.

I've had a few fat barreled rifles that would shoot under .6" at a hunnert.

But I've only owned two rifles that would shoot under a half inch at a hunnert and I still have both of them but their barrels are too fat to enjoy lugging them around.

Most of my hunting shots these days are from 150yds to 300yds and the rifles I use most often for that are "magnum contour" Remingtons that will consistenly group 3 shots under 1.5" any day in any reasonable wind with my handloads.

From this thread I learned what cankles are, Victoria Principal was VERY HOT in her prime and that there must be a lot of internet rifle owners on this forum.

I've met quite a few people that supposedly owned them at ranges and it almost always seemed that there was some crazy reason they wouldn't shoot under 2" that day. Must have been the rifle gremlins. LOL

I've owned a few 2" rifles myself and some of them never got better and they got sold but seriously if you're the typical hunter that rarely if ever shoots beyond 150 yards and you're familiar with your rifle and a reasonably good shot that doesn't loose his or her cool under the pressure of game shooting then 2" is way more than adequate in my opinion.

Now back to the pictures of Victoria Principal....

Bob

What do you consider to be a skinny barrel?

They didn't call them widowmakers fer nothin'.

The CO of my old sqn was on final approach, but was coming in too hot. I guess he wanted to be on the drag chute and brakes quickly, so when he touched down, his left hand was ready to yank the chute handle. He pulled and the chute came out and ripped off the back.

I thought that he would lift off, do a loop and try landing a second time. Although this sounds laughable in a 104, some aerodynamic braking and liberal use of the brakes would have stopped him before he ran out of runway. But he didn't do that.

No doubt panic set in. He was screaming down the runway much too fast and knew that he'd have to take the barrier. He went for his arrestor hook button, but hit the tip tank jettison instead. Two tanks tumbled gracefully through the air and littered the grass. Oops! Then he managed to find the arrestor hook.

Except that this was a 104. He was too late with the hook and the hoof bounced a couple of times off the runway, jumping the cable. He buried his plane nose first into the dirt mound off the end of the runway. Luckily, no one was hurt. He was a Lt.Col then, but retired a Lieut.Gen.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Pride!

Yeah! Drinks all 'round! [/quote]

had this exact same thing happen with the 172 a couple days ago


....

[did NOT have the same thing happen with the 172]

That's because Cessnas pull themselves through the air. They actually don't fly. They pull themselves along on a layer of air, sorta like pulling on a rope, only higher up.

Jets employ the suck - squeeze - bang - blow principle to move through the air. So you can say that jets suck. Or that they blow. It's all very aerodynamical and punchy.

That's nothin' special. Lot if folks think helicopters fly. Not true.

They beat the air into submission.

What jets do is an unnatural act.

the "best" jets are turbofans, where they let the turbine spin somewhat of a propellor

I think I am the only one on this site that still cleans his barrels.

I clean mine about every 30 to 50 shots. Maybe that's why they don't shoot 1/4 moa groups?

Clean mine but not as often. Usually at the range and fire a couple of fouling shoots before leaving.

I clean mine around every 40-50 rounds, more often if the barrel is newer. Give it a blast with Wipeout, then forget about it until the next day. Contrary to what I read, my experience shows my guns shoot tighter when clean.

Just to finish the story. Here's a pic of the cockpit with the three controls labeled. It's difficult to see the red lines indicating each control. You can understand that if he was unfamiliar with them, or panicked, he would press or pull the wrong thing.

The stores jettison switch was covered with one of those silly stickers and not witness wired. It was very easy to accidentally knock it off. Everyone that did cockpit checks had spares in their pocket.

If you look below the "Drag Chute" label, you can see one of the armament panels. the M61 20mm gun was very accurate indeed, but suffered from barrel burnout if the pilot held the trigger down. The barrels would superheat and the armourers would have to change all six, if one gauged out of spec.

20mm barrel were only cleaned when the gun was due for inspection. That didn't happen for thousands of rounds at a time.

Stuff like that is why jobs for human/systems designers exist.

Do you know if they ever figured out a 0/0 ejection seat for the 104?

Yes they did. Martin Baker made one. Mk7? GC7? Something like that.

Well, I have to say I'm amazed. Vast improvement from the original.

Was this a 104 thread?

Yes. Yes it was.

The M61 is a hunting rifle. It's just that not as many people get to shoot them. If you'd like, you can start a GAU8 thread. It's a hunting rifle too, but has seven barrels, not six, like the M61. It's a bigger gun as well - 30mm vs 20mm.

The 30mm will over penetrate on anything that isn't...wait...it will do that to armor too. -sigh-

We used to have 3 barreled 20mm on the Cobras back in the day. I dunno why. Wing stub mount. ratta-tat-tat

If you're shooting bison...a Minute of Bison will work!!

Generally speaking....if the truth were known...not in every case mind you....I suspect that 100% of the so-called hunting rifles will outshoot 98% of the hunters using them!

Have you always been a pessimist?

Meanwhile, back to "hunting rifle accuracy".....

One three in orange pastie @ 200yd, with two 7mm or 30 cal holes in it, in FEB.

One three in orange pastie @ 200yd, with two 7mm or 30 cal holes in it, in MAR

One three in orange pastie @ 200yd.......

RARE is the rifle and shooter that can pull that off.

Actually I stole that from John Burns' former neighboor. He was another gun-writer who actually could shoot.

Imaginations are powerful things.

Good job TAK.


Travis

I knew one manufacturing executive whose company made some of the component parts for a heavy gun like that. Years before I knew him he was invited to the first test shot of the gun, along with a bunch of other vendors. He wasn't a tech guy, and could not tell me the model of the gun, but he did remember vividly that at the first shot, the projectile penetrated through the armored steel target, through several concrete walls intended to stop the round, through the wall of the plant, and through two cars in the parking lot. The test was deemed a success

All of the early tests were hush-hush.

When the press got wind of the govt wanting to use depleted uranium rounds, civilian and military officials vehemently denied it. Within the year, they had that train derailment with all the DU. Or was it a case of mistaken identity? Perhaps they were jelly beans.

One DU projectile could tumble a 72 ton tank, but DU rounds are ineffective against moose.

I think you're pulling my chain. And would there be anything left to prove that Bullwinkle ever existed?

That depends on whether there is anyone there to hear him fall over.

I was hoping for more photos of Victoria Principal...or that other hottie from the '70's...Lynda Carter

in lieu of such a diversion, though, back to rifles...

This one is a .22-250, and besides being pretty, I wanted it to shoot 1/2" 5-shot groups. It would tease me for a long time too...put 3 in one hole, then toss the next one an inch away. After much work, I finally got there. So there's 3 consecutive 5-shot groups. One called flyer, which I knew I'd pulled as soon as I fired.



Now on the other hand, a .270 is going to be a deer rifle, and like others have said, I wanted an accurate first shot from a cold fouled bore. It's nice if the next two are close, too.



and sub-MOA may be unnecessary when shooting at deer, but it's real nice when you're trying to spine a turkey through the wing butts at 120 yards, 'cause you really don't want to put a Ballistic Tip through the breast meat

That is a pretty rifle!

Yes indeed, and pretty fair shooting IMO. But what does have to do with F104s and DU cannon projectile terminal performance?

Or ground hog day?

On or about Groundhog Day 1978, I was trying to duck jelly beans that were tossed at me from the wrong side of the Eye-Ron Curtain. It was about then I realised that E. Germans had no sense of humour. Still, I suppose I should have been glad that there were no DU jelly beans being hurled. That would have given me an upset tummy.

Had the border patrol been armed with Ruger No. 1s, I might not be here. I likes No 1s, but am cool to the Model 77. No sex appeal. The Ruger Model 77 shoots minute of bored. (I can hear the panties knotting up right now!)

WRT mooses (meese?) falling over...



I have heard them fall over. They usually start singing.

Did you ever see a robin weep
When leaves begin to die?
Like me, he's lost the will to live
I'm so lonesome I could cry

Those words bring me to tears every time.

LAFFIN'!

well, I have no poem for that question. Even though a #1B is prettier than a F104. But I do know a BT launched from a 6.8x65 makes a cloud of turkey feathers. Which might more or less also be true of a m��se shot with a 30mm DU...

For something completely different:



I found, at least with the first handload tested in QCC brass, it shoots MEC (Minute of Escaped Convict). Keep the barrel cold and it will do around 1.5-2" at 50 yards. Let the barrel get hot and it starts stringing vertically, which is thoughtful of the rifle - it automatically increases holdover as your quarry runs farther away...

That's very thoughtful of the designer, no?

FWIW, few things are prettier than a 104. Except maybe a Hustler or an Echols Legend. Or maybe a fine old Greener.

There was a NASA test bed built around the 104. Had a rocket designed into the aft empennage and made it into space they said. Only air breather to pull that off that I'm aware of. Ballistic tips are green with envy. Bergers too. Unlike bullets the 104 almost always landed where it was supposed to.

Working on a poem.

I don't know about its BC, but the glide ratio of a 104 was 1 to 14 - 1 foot forward for 14 ft. down. This demonstrates that given enough impetus, anything will fly - even Model 77s!

I have never shot a flying pig but have participated in making it happen. Walking pigs are another story. My standard for that endeavor is MOB or minute of brain at 20 yards. +/- 10 yards.

14:1 reminds me a lot of the Hughes 269, a truly reprehensible flying machine unworthy of being called a helicopter. It used 8 fan belts to connect the engine to the transmission. In the event of XSMN seizure or a settling with power event it's glide ratio was infinity:0