I have a beloved rifle that has the nasty habit of putting 2 shots next to each other and a third shot "flyer"

I recall reading a recommendation here on the 'fire some time ago something like the following:


"start by looking at the shape of your groups. If there are 2 together and the 3rd shot out of the group, the OAL is too long for your rifle chamber and you need to seat the bullet deeper."

is this a generally accepted protocol?

Playing with seating depth can often help, but I haven't found that technique to be always consistent--partly because 3-shot groups aren't always a good indicator--especially if you're not using wind flags.

It could also be due to other reasons, including the barrel not being stress-relieved, or action/barrel bedding. I am sure others will be along soon to list every possibility....

You don't offer any other factors such as the barrel contour - is it a lightweight, thin barrel. If so it may be a matter of change in harmonics due to heat effects on the barrel. In that case there's the only solution I can think of is dampening - as opposed to floating - the barrel. In other words, a full-length barrel and action bed. Not saying that's the situation here of is so, the only solution. Just something for you to consider and explore.

Thin barrels aren't any more affected by heat "harmonics" than medium-weight barrels if they're properly stress-relieved and bedded. Melvin Forbes repeatedly proved that for decades with Douglas barrels in his Ultra Light and New Ultra Light Arms rifles--but yes, he "dampened" them by full-length bedding them in his very stiff synthetic stocks.

Thanks for the replies. FWIW, the rifle is a M70 FWT, Shot Show Special in 280Rem

Make sure you clean all the copper fouling out of it. Some were copper mines. Then shoot 5 shot groups when diagnosing group dispersion. That’s a minimum, but will definitely show what some of us refer to as “double grouping”. 2 in 3 out for an example. Often times shortening OAL will help. As does adjusting powder charge. However, if you are at the group diagnosis stage, you should be at OCW. Then fine tune with OAL, or even switching to a better performing powder, will help. This is assuming your rifle is solid mechanically, you are shooting off a good rest, and you are doing your part.

Thanks, appreciate the input. I'll check the copper. Rifle is in good shape and has had the "Redneck treatment". I could be the culprit, but the "2&1" happens so regularly with this rifle and not so much with others. And I have tried multiple powders and OALs.

This may help: https://bergerbullets.com/getting-the-best-precision-and-accuracy-from-vld-bullets-in-your-rifle/


Okie John

How far off is the 3rd shot?

What do 5-shot groups look like?

If it’s repeatable and does it over and over I’ll start shortening my OAL. Some bullets will respond to shortening and some just don’t care as much. A couple 3 shot groups usually shows me the trend.

Wouldn't hurt to check concentricity also. A lot of my flyers started going away once I started measuring that and correcting. I'll always have a couple out of a batch of 20 that are a little off no matter how smooth my reloading is going. I even check factory ammo with it.

How is it stocked? Wood, composit? Maybe a beding block? Check beding for shiny spots, indicating a high spot or action flexing. Check the bottom of the lug recess if a block, might be binding, BTDT. Beding is the first thing I look at, if not perfect, you`ll pull your hair out, and waste a ton of ammo and time.

Good Luck

On any Model 70 tossing shots, the center action screw is the first thing to look at.

Good shootin':) -Al

Yep--and often the simplest solution, which is where anybody should start with any mechanical problem.

Same deal with the front screw on the trigger guard in Remington 700 ADLs....

Has anyone offered a plausible explanation for how seating depth or COL would lead to a consistent 2 in 1 out? Has always sounded like pure bullchit to me. About as dumb as choosing a load based upon a single trifecta.

Yeah, if seating depth was leading to one being out of the group, why wouldn't they all be out of the group so to speak?

That's one of the "problems" with 3-shot groups. If two shots are closer together (and that's the odds when shooting 3 rounds), then the third is often called a "flier."

In fact I have good friend who shoots 3-shot groups until one ends up in a nearly perfect, small triangle--then shows that group off, which to him proves that's THE LOAD.

Jim Carmichel wrote about this decades ago, saying that most "pet loads" are the result of one 3-shot group....

By that reasoning though, anything that causes 2 and 1 should have them all out of group.

I often only shoot three shot groups but I shoot a lot of them before making any declarations. I have saw the two and one thought debunked by a few 5 shot groups showing it just to be part of the "pattern". I have also saw OAL affect group size as I imagine most everyone here has. I always start at either a kiss or at the max OAL the mag box length will allow. That way there is only one direction to go if there is a suspected problem.

It's a bit of brute force, but one way to know the outer limits of what's going on with grouping is to keep shooting until the hole in the target stops growing. I've done that a few times with a couple of my heavier 308s.

My fellow gun writer John Haviland did that with a New Ultra Light Arms 7mm-08 he'd requested Melvin to send for an article. John has heard (perhaps from me) that you could NULAs really hot and they'd maintain accuracy and point-of-impact--so after shooting one group small normal-number group he just kept shooting. If I recall correctly, he put 20 rounds into less than an inch before quitting. (Which is when he decided to buy the rifle....)

That is a cool story!

All my 3 shot groups really improved when I started letting the barrel cool off for at least 10 minutes between shots.

victoro,

HEAT-TREATING BARRELS:
Preventing rifles from “walking” their shots

One of the most persistent notions among rifle shooters is centerfire barrels tend to “walk” as they heat up after multiple shots, resulting in scattered groups--especially lightweight barrels. A couple of years ago I discovered an older friend of mine, also named John, belonged to this group.

John decided to buy a New Ultra light Arms rifle as a present to himself, so he could keep hiking around after deer and elk despite hills and mountains becoming increasingly steeper each year. He bought the NULA after discovering how well the three Eileen and I own balanced very well, because like many hunters his experience with light big game rifles involved shorter, thinner barrels, resulting in very muzzle-light balance.

Instead, NULAs weigh less because the actions and synthetic stocks are very light, so they can be fitted with standard barrels. Ours mostly 24-inch #2 contour Douglas barrels with muzzles measuring .600 inch in diameter, yet weigh well under seven pounds with a typical 12-ounce hunting scope. (Melvin Forbes, owner of NULA, uses Douglas as his standard brand, partly because Douglas is located in Charlestown, West Virginia, an easy drive from the NULA shop in Morgantown, but also because they shoot well.)

John decided on the 7x57 Mauser, because like many older hunters he is not fond of recoil, and as an avid handloader knew the old round would work fine on elk with the right bullets. However, after its first range session, he mentioned being disappointed in the accuracy, since 3-shot groups rarely measured less than about 1.5 inches, no matter the load.
This has not been our experience with NULAs, so I asked some questions. It turned out John was waiting five minutes between firing test-rounds, because he had heard sporter-weight barrels need to totally cool down between shots. I assured him that he could shoot his new rifle as fast as he could aim and fire. This is because Douglas barrels are properly heat-treated after being button-rifled, and then bedded in the very stable NULA stocks, with the barrel precisely contacting the forend channel.

Any rifle with a properly heat-treated barrel and good stock bedding should do the same thing—and waiting five minutes (or two, or whatever) between shots often results in larger groups. Spreading out the firing practically guarantees the shooter will hold the rifle somewhat differently for each shot, which affects light rifles more than “standard” rifles.
It also generally means the wind will change, and even an erratic 5-mph breeze can result in .75 inch of extra spread at 100 yards. This is why so many successful target shooters quickly fire as many rounds as possible during a certain “wind condition”—and obviously do not wait for the barrel to cool between shots.

John looked skeptical, but I explained “hot stability” is why my NULA .30-06 is my favorite rifle for testing scopes: The light rifle not only recoils enough to reveal mechanical problems, but remains very accurate as the barrel heats up, speeding up the test. (Personally, I cannot imagine waiting several minutes between shots when testing either scopes or handloads. Life is too short.) Now, it may seem criminal to shoot such an accurate hunting rifle fast enough to get the barrel hot, which tends to shorten barrel life—but as Melvin Forbes frequently points out, Douglas makes new barrels every week.

So what is heat-treating, and how does it affect rifle barrels? Basically, any metal can be heat-treated in order to achieve certain goals, but in barrel steel, heat-treating removes stresses introduced both during the manufacturing of the cylindrical steel bars used to make barrels, and during the rifling process. I have visited several barrel factories, and talked extensively with other barrel makers. So far every company buys long cylindrical bars formed by cold-rolling—which are then stress-relieved at the factory, sometimes twice.

This is accomplished by heating the bars to 1000-1100 degrees Fahrenheit (exactly how hot depending on the type of steel), then cooled slowly. This eliminates internal stresses, allowing the barrel maker to drill straight holes. The hole is next reamed to the correct bore diameter, then rifled, which may or may not reintroduce stresses into the steel, depending on the method.

Cut-rifling generally does not stress the barrel, one reason many shooters consider cut-rifled barrels most accurate. Among the most highly regarded are made by Krieger Barrels Inc. I have owned several Krieger barrels over the years, and all shot very well.

Their website describes the technique: “We rifle all of our barrels using the single-point cut-rifling process. Although our machines are state of the art, the process itself is the oldest and slowest method of rifling a barrel. It’s also the most accurate. The cutter removes approximately .0001 inch, or 1 ten-thousandth of an inch, at each pass, thus taking several hundred passes to rifle a barrel. This method produces almost perfect concentricity between bore and groove, a very uniform twist rate, and induces no stress into the steel that later has to be relieved.”

I have owned about the same number of cut-rifled barrels, both new and rebored, made by Dan Pederson at Classic Barrel & Gunworks, who also does not heat-treat barrels after rifling. My latest CB&G is a very slim .257 Roberts barrel Dan fitted to an FN Mauser commercial action, and it does not walk any more than of his other barrels—which is not at all.

Hammer-forging rifling is generally claimed to introduce the most stress into barrel steel, since a bunch of mechanical “hammers” quickly pound a drilled steel bar around a rifled mandrel. The bar starts out very thick and short, but gets pounded into a typical longer, thinner barrel-shape.

This would obviously seem to stress steel, but as with just about any subject these days, somebody will offer a contrary opinion on the Internet. While researching this article I came across a short YouTube video by a company that hammer-forges barrels, where a spokesman stated: “Because the barrel is made so perfectly by compression, and because it’s cooled the whole time it’s compressing, you never get any of those stresses of cut rifling.”

Hmm. The Austrian company Steyr, which developed the hammer-forging technique early in World War II, heat-treats its barrels after forging. Steyr not only makes barrels for its own firearms, but sells them to other European factories well-known for very accurate rifles.

Other European companies have been hammer-forging their barrels for quite a while. In 2015 I was one a number of gun writers who toured the Sako and Tikka factory in Riihimaki, Finland. Both brands have a reputation for superb accuracy, partly because the same hammer-forged barrels are used for each. I specifically asked if they are heat-treated at the factory, and the answer was a very definite yes.

Somewhere in between are button-rifled barrels. The bar steel is drilled and reamed like cut-rifled barrels, but the rifling is formed by a very hard metal “button,” perhaps an inch long, with a mirror image of the grooves on its surface. The button is pulled or pushed through the lubricated bore, while being turned at the desired twist-rate.

Dan Lilja is known for making very accurate button-rifled barrels. Aside from visiting his Montana shop, I have probably had as many rifles fitted with Lilja barrels as any brand of custom barrel. His website includes a description of the post-rifling heat-treatment: “When a barrel is button-rifled, no material is removed to create the grooves. Rather, the steel is cold formed and moved outward. This process introduces some stress into the steel, and this stress must be removed. The best method of doing so is by heating the barrel to a temperature of about 1100 degrees and holding the steel at that temperature for a pre-determined time. To prevent decarburization of the steel it is best to perform this step in a vacuum furnace where the atmosphere is pumped out. Following this heat treating the barrels are completely stress free.”

So with all this heat-treating going on, why do some barrels walk? Well, there are other possible reasons than the barrel itself, probably the most common barrel bedding. In RIFLE No. 301 (November 2018) I reviewed the first commercial .308 Winchester ever produced, the “pre-’64” Model 70 Featherweight. Both the rifle and cartridge appeared in 1952, and probably played a role in the belief that lightweight barrels walk as they heat up—even though all pre-’64 barrels, of any contour, were cut-rifled.

The problem with the original Featherweights, however, was not the slim barrel. Instead it was the barrel bedding, which was really screwy. Winchester claimed the barrels were free-floating, but instead they were only slightly loose in the forend channel, so during firing they vibrated against the wood. According to more than one review of the new rifle and cartridge, this resulted in subpar accuracy (which today would be consider not just poor but completely unacceptable), 5-shot groups often measuring 2-3 inches, and sometimes more.

My Featherweight .308’s stock bedding was unaltered, and that is exactly how it initially shot. I then temporarily free-floated the barrel with a pair of plastic shims placed behind the recoil lug. The rifle then started shooting very well, with no sign of barrel-walking; three-shot groups with nine handloads and five factory loads averaged .85 inch. Its best handload groups five rounds into around an inch, shot as fast as I can aim accurately and fire.

Another potential bedding culprit is the “tip hump” in many factory rifles, a pressure point at the front of the forend channel, designed to dampen barrel vibrations. These can work very well in a stable, precisely-made stock, but unfortunately in other stocks the amount of pressure varies, and can be especially wimpy in many of today’s injection-molded models. The barrel can also be off-center in the hump, or the hump may be uneven enough to provide at least two pressure-points. As a result, quite a few pressure-bedded hunting rifles walk their shots as the barrel gets warm—and the barrel gets blamed.

Factory barrels can also be poorly fitted into the action. I own one of the super-short-action Model 70 Winchesters chambered for the .223SSM, purchased used at Capital Sports in Helena, Montana in 2012. The .223 WSSM acquired an early reputation for frying barrels, though I doubt they fried as quickly as some people claimed.

Part of the problem may have been Winchester promoting the .223 WSSM as the ultimate prairie dog round. No other kind of hunting burns barrels quicker than intensive PD shooting in summer weather, and I have seen visible signs of throat erosion through my Gradient Lens bore-scope after only 250 rounds of .223 Remington ammo was fired quickly. Accuracy of that particular .223 Remington, however, remained very good for thousands of rounds.

The .223 WSSM’s price was so low I suspected the barrel might be shot out, so asked permission to take a look with my bore-scope. The salesman said that would fine. There was only a little erosion so I bought the rifle, along with a few boxes of factory ammunition.

It would not group three shots into much smaller than three inches with either the factory ammo or handloads, even after I tried several bedding tricks. Finally I sent the rifle to gunsmith Charlie Sisk for a new Lilja barrel, and when Charlie started to unscrew the old barrel, its threads were so undersized the shank rattled around inside the action. The Lilja barrel is a “medium sporter,” with a muzzle diameter of .660 inch, which shoots great and does NOT walk as it warms up.

Another cause can be improper heat-treatment. I once owned a laminated-stock custom rifle chambered for a milder big-game cartridge, made by a company that produced their own barrels. I wanted the rifle light, and since they offered barrels turned to the Winchester Model 70 Featherweight contour, chose that option.

This rifle generally fired the first two shots close together, but after that they started to scatter in any direction. Allowing the rifle to cool even 10 minutes after each group did not help. Instead it had to cool at least half an hour. The bedding was fine, with the epoxy-bedded wood evenly contacted the barrel throughout the forend—
but I also tried the temporary free-floating trick, and the rifle shot the same way.

The mystery was finally solved one day when talking to a fellow gun writer, who had tested more than one rifle from that particular company. He said their barrels all walked, because (as he eventually discovered) they were heat-treated AFTER drilling and reaming, before they were button-rifled. The barrel-maker adamantly claimed this was the proper method.

The walkingest rifle I have ever owned, however, was a synthetic-stocked .22-250 with a very stout button-rifled barrel, made by an American factory known for affordable but accurate rifles. This was 20 years ago, back when many prairie dog shooters (including me) used a .223 Remington for shooting out to about 250-300 yards, and a .22-250 for longer shots.

After mounting a reliable scope, I sighted-in with some factory ammo left over from another project, and the rifle consistently put five shots considerably under an inch. I then took it on a couple of trips hosted by ammunition factories--and after more than five shots the point-of-impact rising and moving left a couple of inches. How quickly this happened depended on the ambient temperature, but if I kept whacking away it occurred even on relatively cool days. Did the rifle company assume heavy barrels did not require heat-treating? I do not know, but the rifle went down the road.

These days I shoot a Remington 700 in.204 Ruger at what used to be .22-250 prairie dog ranges, a factory rifle that started off as their VTR, with a triangular-contour barrel. It did not walk its shots even when the barrel got so hot I consciously avoided touching it. The hot shooting eventually, of course, burned out the barrel, but not for a couple of seasons. I replaced it with a new Remington factory barrel, a stainless sporter purchased for around $100 from an Internet site. It does not walk when hot either.

If your rifle walks its shot, something is wrong—and the problem is probably not the barrel.

John,

Thanks for the very informative post!

If an animal is willing to stand stock-still while the first two shots land right next to each other in his vitals, that third shot, while he continues to stand stock-still, being a bit to one side of the first two isn't really going to matter all that much.

Well...thanks for everyone's contributions. It seems clear that the original question

("start by looking at the shape of your groups. If there are 2 together and the 3rd shot out of the group, the OAL is too long for your rifle chamber and you need to seat the bullet deeper.")

is this a generally accepted protocol?

has been answered. To wit:

This theory is NOT generally accepted!!

One thing I didn't discuss in the article is the possible effect of heat-waves from the barrel, which can "bend" light enough to change POI. Which is why benchrest shooters use various methods to divert the waves....

John, I do a lot of work with sporter barrelled hunting rigs.....and barrel heat is a bigger deal than most allow themselves to believe. On those guns, I tape a piece of target material to the barrel when testing. Rather than 'shimmering' like mirage does, barrel heat acts to displace the target image completely. One very accurate 300WSM I worked with showed a 3/8" change in POI...crazy. People can scoff at stuff like this but it all adds up. Add in no wind indicators and group sizes can easily end up doubled.

On my BR stuff, a piece of exposed XRay film is Velcro'd on (we used this with step wedges for density checks in our department).


For the OP, a simple check of the action screws would be a good start. But most mire down in the minutiae, rather than starting from the start.

Good shootin' -Al

I've set up a new paper machine. They are huge. Our surveying transit was accurate to a thou, but we still had issues as light bends. Now they use lasers, they don't bend.

Watch the Hornady Podcast on dispersion. I found it very interesting.



You are probably just seeing what the rifle / load is really capable of over several groups of a larger number of shot.

Yep, most would be amazed at how much shift can occur thru lighting and mirage. Learned that early on when land surveying in Phoenix.

That`s interesting, as I do the seat depth 2 in one out all the time, if my rifle prints like that..and I find it to work, usually moving the bullets deeper by 5 thous a move.
But don`t believe me, ask Berger why, with their bullets, they suggest starting at kiss to as much as130 off the lands with their VLD bullet, moving the bullet deeper by about 40ths a move. They also suggest the same approach with the Hybrid, from kiss to 60ths off, at 15ths a move deeper.
I also found this to work with their .30 cal 175 gn. target and VLD bullets out of my 06. Also with the 115`s out on my .25 cal rifles.

I must be the exception to the Generaly Accepted Rule.

Barrel heat is a form of mirage, and I used a barrel band on the 308 when shooting H.P. for some years, shooting irons.

As usual, YMMV

Trying different seating depths, from up close/kissing to deeper, is standard protocol--or has been for a while anyway. (Way back in the 20th century most handloaders advised seating bullets just off the lands, and if that didn't work after trying several powders and/or powder charges, to try a different bullet.)

But the old post the OP referred to suggested seating bullets longer for one type of 3-shot group, or and seating them deeper for another type of group.

The walkingest rifles that I've yet to own are Savage 24 combination guns that are chambered for centerfire cartridges. The rifle barrels have a light contour with no way to regulate the rifle barrel and most are unsupported between the breech block and where they are rigidly attached to the lower/shotgun barrel at the muzzle. The rimfire 24s don't seem to have the same problem, regardless of whether the barrels are separated or soldered together.

Hey John...I`ve found that to be true, as you can pass optimal depth for a particular bullet, and usually get a "wide" triangle. I`ve closed them by seating longer. But as you know, all rifles/barrels/ bullets differ, that`s the challenge, and why we "custom" reload.

Jeff,

That's been my experience as well!

+1

It would take a LOT of testing to convince me that that would be THE problem.

MM

Yep--and as I noted elsewhere, 3-shot groups TEND to have two holes closer to each other--even if they're small groups. That's the way the laws of chance work. Is the "flier" really a flier, or is it more reflective of the average dispersion of ALL shots? Which is why groups of at least 5 shots come closer to reflecting the average dispersion of a given load, though statistically 6-shot groups are a little better.

now I have heard this and in theory I can't prove it wrong but I'm not sure that it's correct
if you have a nice triangular group get closer to the lands the tighten it up if you have a nice tight group with a flyer out get further from the lands to get rid of the flyers...
that may just be a way of hitting a node but maybe not knowing if it's the tightest node I don't really know...

On 07/05/05, I wrote this:
"You can cure this common problem with many rifles by seating the bullets a quarter turn deeper on the seating die and trying another group. You may have to keep repeating the process, but that 3rd bullet usually comes into the group.

The opposite is true if you find your rifle shooting larger triangular groups. Magazine OAL permitting, try seating the bullet out a quarter turn and repeat the groups. You will enjoy the surprise.

Remember that there are many generic statements made on this kind of forum and if something does not work, try something else.

I pay little heed in exact quotes of leade for bullet seating and learned from the bench rest boys who commonly don't even know what powder charge they are using, but try it up and down until it works".



Seating die adjustment has been repeated a couple of times since, with detractors who never tried it, legions of experts who opined it couldn't work, and sometimes followed up by readers who tried it and found it worked for them. This usually ended the thread. Facts can be upsetting.

A few years ago I followed up by stating that my tests also determined that the thinner the barrel the finer or less adjustment was needed to record a change. I also noted that some rifles were less responsive than others. Particular standouts in my testing were Browning heavy barreled rifles both in bolt action and semi auto loading format which obviously predated the Aussie Buy Back period after 1996. The Browning Boss rifles of nearly 30 years ago now had short and thin barrels usually around 20" so in the case of the 270 chambering, ballistics were compromised and blast considerably increased as part of that trade off for accuracy.

These tests also included removing the Boss unit to determine the raw baseline for accuracy from those particular rifles as they were all factory bedded and free floated. It was overall, poor. 2 inches not rare and sub half inch and half that, achieved when the Boss unit was tuned to favor barrel vibrations. These thin barrels required movements that could be measured in thou rather than inches. Very small which were learned through trial and error at the bench. One rifle in particular, tested every week or 2 for 6 months before I wrote it up. There was no instructional material provided with these early rifles. I was on my own.

When looking at these type of threads, it always pays to reread the first one, the OP, then note the growth of opinion and guesswork that evolves in the responses until they stray from the OP brief just as this thread has.

Responses should not be about "I know more than you so you need to listen" or "blustery negative hypothesis" or "negative pontification where the theory hasn't been tried", surely?

Has one single person stated they tried it in X number of rifles over X amount of years and only found success X number of times?
Has anyone tried it enough to state that these barrel formats showed promise and these didn't? Or, these manufacturers or models responded better than others?

Keeping targets or pics of targets is terrific record keeping, the best, because you can re-shoot that same load next week and determine whether you had a good day only, or a repeatable result. I have repeat groups that emulated the original. That is called evidence, not opinion. I have rifles that shoot better than me as I obviously don't have the eyes I did when I started writing, but I sure put a lot of rifles and loads over the bench and chronograph. Even the local range master once told me he gets calls at the range asking whether I actually shoot rifles (am I there?) or am I all BS? I get it, don't care and call it as it was at that time.

If you haven't tried it, you don't know. If you have tried it, you can at least note the rifles and design formats that didn't produce results.
Where you fit into this picture, you know, so nothing more need be said.

Welcome to democracy on the internet, your freedom to choose..........Carry on, as they say.

Maybe i missed it, but i didn't see where the OP said how big the 3 shot groups in question were at 100yds. Is the rifle seesawing the groups from one impact point to the other every shot, or is it printing the first 2 shots close together, and the 3rd shot is the "flier"? 3 shot groups is all i do for development, but these are backed up at least twice before i'm convinced. I've been known not to shoot the third shot in a group if the first 2 shots are too far apart for the group to suit my needs, as it isn't like the 3rd shot is going to close the group. Assuming you've already did seating depth testing when you settled on the load, so i doubt you find any help there.

I'd look over the action screws first, and if nothing is found there I'd redneck bed the action with a few layers of blue painters tape. 2 layers, and a third layer under front action screw. I've tightened up a few 700's this way, and on those i also taped the back of the recoil lug as well. Easy to do, and easy to remove if it doesn't help.

I agree with what some others have said about what is considered the accepted protocol. I would add this. Just some food for thought, prefaced with the acknowledgement that everyone wants the tightest groups possible. Sometimes however, tight groups aren't needed, or even possible, no matter what you do..

I posted these 40 and 60 shot targets. Both were formed using a number of different loads from a 6x45mm bolt action rifle. They were shot at 100 yards using a std contour barrel with a bipod, from the bench. I don't know if this applies to your rifle or not, but it's something that anyone can mull over.

If it's a deer rifle and the expected range of encounter is 300 yards or less, all the bullets fired at either of these 8.5x11 sheets of paper will anchor a deer. The only thing I would do is move the group to the bull. These were test loads. A three shot group can be a acceptable indicator of how well your rifle will shoot - if they land approximately where you aim. A third shot that is considerably far away from the other two, say 2 or 3 inches, is probably the shooter. Whether it's a factory load or a handload, and the scope is properly zeroed, proximity is what you need.

For comparative purposes, the heart/lung kill area on a whitetail is about the size of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. In these two cases, all shots impacted within that 8.5x11 paper.

Unless it is a varmint or target rifle, these two groups demonstrated the capability of my rifle. I don't know which shots hit first. Some were probably pulled or affected by the wind. Regardless, any one of these would have meant a successful hunt.

I understand the desire to shoot tight little clusters, but having a tack driver isn't always possible. For a rifle that you really like, or has sentimental value, shooting 3 shot, 2 or 3 inch groups at 100 yards might be all you need.

...