Been following with interest that thread. I'm just a average layman with average skills, but here is my take on the subject.
When working up loads, load 5 of each load. select the best 2 groups, load 10 of each. shoot 10 and declare a winner. At this point might play with OAL From there on, shoot 3 shot groups at 100 / 200 yards.
If time after time 100 yard groups of 3 are consistently under an 1.5 inch, and 200 yard groups are consistently under 3 inches. I'm happy. Why? Because that's all I ask of my rifles. Do I genuinely know what the actual accuracy of each rifle is? Probably not, but I don't need to know down to the inth degree what they are purely capable of. I do know that when I go hunting I have confidence I will fill the freezer out to 200 yards. Anything beyond that is not needed for my criteria. It suits my needs well. This applies to me. Your needs may vary. In Michigan where I hunt, its rare unless you live / hunt down a power line clearing to get 100+ yard shots, hence my logic.
That was/ is an interesting thread to say the least.
I have been keeping up with the post I started. Perhaps, we need to dig a little deeper and spell out what I see as important. I received a PM that truly categorized people with their firearms.
1. Shooters 2.Hunters 3. Casual shooters
He further went on to say there was a big difference between 1 and 2 and 3.
First off to be good in #1, one has to have enough trigger time to be able to tell if an errant shot is the shooter or gun/ammo. This takes a lot of trigger time with almost year round shooting, if old like me. Sitting down on the bench with confidence and complete control, takes lots of practice. In addition, shooting Rock Chucks and Sage Rats provide an outlet from April thru June. If I had to just shoot paper, I would not pursue this like I do.
And as I shoot chucks, I want to extend my range. My longest shot on a chuck is 417 yards. Not a long ways for many, but for me, a long ways. Next season if I am still around, my goal is about 550 yards. To make those shots, I have to be confident along with having a very accurate rifle/ammo combination.
Big game hunters could care less as the target is much larger. I shot many dozens of big game animals with a Ruger 270 that was 1 1/2" gun.
As for the number of shots needed to test your loads, since 1961, I have shot 3 shot groups with maybe a dozen 5 shot. I find that if I can go out the next time and shoot a group similar to the last one, the 3 shot group is suffice. I think that what Mule Deer was actually talking about with 10 shot groups, is what bullet companies must do to prove their bullets. Primarly, I am interested in one shot groups. I want to be able to have that bullet go where I want in one shot. I do not want to have to shoot the second time to make the kill.
Many of you reading this are likely much better shots than I am. About that, good for you. If you are not, then you have something to work for.
Actually, I was talking about 10-shot groups (or anything more than 3-shot) to provide a realistic idea of what a given rifle and load will do IF somebody needs or wants all the accuracy possible.
Here's an example. Most years I normally shoot quite a few prairie dogs, and while I always taking several rifles I use the .204 Ruger as my main PD cartridge. The .204 I used for a while was a Remington 700 VTR that would group 10 shots of its primary handload under 3/4" at 100 yards. This translates into a rifle that will keep all its shots in around 2" at 300 yards, or about an inch from point of aim. Now, I'm not talking about typical PD shooting conditions, but the inherent capability of the rifle and load.
Year before last I started missing dogs at around 300 after what I thought was a good hold. So I put it on paper again at 100, shooting another 10-shot group with the same load, which was closer to 1-1/2". Which meant the barrel was starting to go, so I replaced it.
But the same barrel would still average right around 1/2" for 3-shor groups, which many shooters would consider very accurate. But three shots simply don't show what ALL shots will do with a given rifle and load, and that's what I'm interested in with a PD rifle. Otherwise even a perfect hold at 300 results in too many misses, and that wastes far more ammo than using a 10-shot group as a basic test at 100, instead of cheaping out and only shooting 3-shot groups.
With many of my big game rifles, however, 3-shot groups are plenty. As an example that's what I normally shoot in my 9.3x62, and they average under an inch, good enough to sight-in, while a 10-shot group would be considerably larger, so is any animals I'm going to shoot with the rifle. I'm not going to use it on pronghorn at 500+ yards, and most of the time shoot animals bigger than deer at less than 300 yards. It doesn't really matter if the rifle shoots half-inch or 1-inch or even 1-1/2 inch groups, because any are plenty for trying to hit the basketball-sized vital zone of the rifle's usual game,m at usual ranges.
And this, of course, is why so many people on the other thread said they'd great results from shooting only 3-shot groups when working up loads and hunting big game. Most people shoot big game at ranges where 2" or even 3" accuracy at 100 yards won't make any difference at all, because the target's so big. Yet the same people will often spend plenty of time working up loads and shooting 3-shot groups they can brag about. If that's what makes people happy, then why not?
But 3-shot groups at 100 yards don't really have any relevance in actually hitting a SMALL target at 300 yards. At the same time they're no handicap in shooting basketball-sized targets at 300 yards, because there's so much room for error.
So yes, it depends on what kind of shooter you are, but also on the level of accuracy required for what kind of shooting you plan on doing.
John, I do not shoot the volume on chucks that you shoot at prairie dogs. I've killed over a thousand chucks and never had a load bite me in the butt. I shoot two primary rifles, A Sako 223 with a PacNor barrel and a 20 TAC with the same brand barrel. If I do my part with my reloads, they shoot under 1/2" anytime. Both guns were rebarreled by Bob Greene.
I seldom shoot anything less than 200 yards as it is not very sporting.
So I have confidence in me and my guns and that is why 1 shot groups are what I like after the final loads are chosen.
John in being very truthful, I have never had a good experience with factory barrels except with 06's and my 243 HB Sako. Both were extremely accurate. I suspect that you have used lots of factory rifles, of which there is a huge difference in accuracy generally.
Really 3 shot groups are totally appropriate if you are combining them in a running average. Let me give you an example: A deer hunter says he rarely shoots over 3 shots at deer so he decides that a 3 shot group is how he wants to evaluate his load under its intended purpose. What he should do is fire 10 or so 3 shot groups For a running average. Realisticaly he doesn't even have to do them on the same day or he can even clean his barrel in between strings (especially if that's the state of the rifles barrel when he sets out to hunt) and let it cool. This is load/system reliability and would be appropriate. The example Mule Deer gave using 10 shots makes sense shooting varmints or in volume and was able to detect a problem using this method.
If one can not call his shots and know he shot a flyer before looking through the spotter, he is wasting his time at the bench.
One of the most revealing tests you can do with any hunting rifle and load is to staple up a target and shoot one shot from the bench each morning for ten days in a row.
A couple of five shot groups will show that the barrel does not walk as she warms up.
I usually shoot three shot groups during load development because: Three shots into three inches at 100 yds tells me all I need to know about the load.
Three shots into .5 inchs warrants the expenditure of a couple more bullets to produce a more statistically relevant sample.
I seldom shoot anything less than 200 yards as it is not very sporting.
...
For me, being able to get closer to the animals I shoot is more sporting and gentlemanly than sniping them from afar.
Not that I have anything against it or that I, myself, do not find satisfaction in a well executed 400 yd shot but I can`t see how it is more sporting than a well executed stalk.
A few years ago I read an article on group size. The writer said that he puts a second target behind his first target as a backer. Every time he shoots a three shot group, he puts the same backer behind his target. Eventually, he has a 51 shot group in his backer that shows what he and his rifle are capable of on demand. Interesting concept.
If one can not call his shots and know he shot a flyer before looking through the spotter, he is wasting his time at the bench.
If one hasn't learned to "call his shots",...e.g. the sight picture at the instant the trigger breaks,....he's spent far to much time ON benches, and not enough time dry and live firing on his hind legs.
Quote
One of the most revealing tests you can do with any hunting rifle and load is to staple up a target and shoot one shot from the bench each morning for ten days in a row.
Amen, and I thank old Cactus Jack for having written / published that so many years ago.
the real secret to shooting a good group is a good trigger, the best upgrade you can do to any rifle. Plus the best way to fire a one hole group is to fire only one shot.
If one can not call his shots and know he shot a flyer before looking through the spotter, he is wasting his time at the bench.
If one hasn't learned to "call his shots",...e.g. the sight picture at the instant the trigger breaks,....he's spent far to much time ON benches, and not enough time dry and live firing on his hind legs.
Quote
One of the most revealing tests you can do with any hunting rifle and load is to staple up a target and shoot one shot from the bench each morning for ten days in a row.
Amen, and I thank old Cactus Jack for having written / published that so many years ago.
GTC
if you can't call your shots on the bench, you ain't learned much...
It's been years since I wore "The Red hat" at a public range, and watched the "General Public" go to work sighting in their manglums (off the bench) the week before hunting season opened.
I was shooting in competition at that time, spent a lot of time dry firing and in offhand practice.
I could but shake my head at some of the nonsense that I saw.
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
As a reader - not a writer - I am aggravated by the disparity of grouping comparison sample sizes in various magazines.
I consider American Rifleman's average of three five-shot groups to be the gold standard. Not for load development but for comparing the accuracy of various guns.
When I read reviews of rifles that were only shot for three-shot groups I feel that there was no meaningful evaluation of the accuracy potential of that rifle. This is essentially shilling for the manufacturer.
When the writer chooses to only reveal the >best< group with each load... he has clearly told me the rifle is a POS.
There is a world of difference between shooting groups to evaluate a rifle versus developing a load.
When I hear the BS of "I shoot X-shot groups because I seldom need more than X shots to take game" I wonder what audience the writer thinks he is addressing, it certainly isn't me.
"The only shot that matters to me is the first shot out of a clean, cold barrel." Great, I love your one-shot groups. Ever get any large ones? I wish these blow-hards would shoot one shot per day for ten days on one target and tell me what happens. Really, it's about time to learn that.
"I excluded the widest shot in each group because [choose one]: unlike the rest of the world, there is weather where I shoot; my bench was not solid; I hurt my toe; I had a cup of coffee that morning; I can't shoot." Well, isn't that special? Actually, the writer is "special", undoubtedly a product of "social promotion", and the group sizes are meaningless.
Many good posts from several people on this thread. The difference between what is "needed" vs. what is "wanted" in the way of accuracy has been well explained.
Some loonys, like me, enjoy going much farther than necessary in our quest for the perfect bullet or load for a particular rifle. I have a hard time knowing when to quit. I am guilty of shooting more just so I can reload more, instead of the other way around.
I shoot far more ground squirrels than anything else and I like to use various sporter-weight rifles all the way up to 30-06, as an excuse to practice with those rifles.
I enjoy experimenting with "deer rifles", many of them old classics, until I can get good hits on ground squirrels at 200 yards. This requires a higher level of accuracy than I need for deer-size animals.
I have taken a few deer and antelope out to near 400 yards with some of these rifles, which seemed relatively easy after getting good hits on squirrels at 200 yards.
One comment directed at Chamois:
You criticized Fred Willis for deferring shots under 200 yards and therefore preferring shots over 200 yards as being unsportsmanlike. I believe you may have missed the fact that he was talking about chucks. Most of us agree with you if you are talking about game animals.
For varmints most of us will take shots much further than that. If you choose to stalk all of your varmints to less than 200 yards, that is fine. I do that, too, sometimes, if I am using an iron-sighted 30-30 that day, on ground squirrels. In any case, welcome to the fire.
After coming up with a good, final load for my old Remington pump M-141 in .35 Rem I set out to take a ground squirrel with it. I finally got a fat one at about 80 yards.
No, the big, slow bullet didn't blow him to pieces. No, it didn't blow him in two, either.
But that was the most turned-inside-out squirrel I have ever shot, from end to end. Only half his tail was showing and only part of his head. Quite a sight.
Only a loony would deliberately set out to shoot a squirrel with a .35 Rem.
My buddy who live in Colorada, puts a gallon milk jug of water up at 100 yards and if they hit it they are sighted for elk season. The sad part is they all kill their Elk every year with that sight in.
I doubt the rifles you shooting are out-of-the-box sporters, with factory ammo selected because it was the cheapest at the local store. Which is why I also doubt you'd take a box of ammo to hit the dot.
Time to trot out the old geezer with the .30-30 story once again.
1976 or 77, at an informal range south of Logan, UT, several of us were sighting in our rifles for hunting season, dialing in that last 1/2" adjustment of windage or whatever. An old beat up green pickup from the 50's pulls up and this grizzled old guy gets out. He could have been 80 or a well worn 60, but he was right out of central casting - sweat stained cowboy hat with a hole worn at the peak of the crease, three day stubble of beard, the whole nine yards.
At the break, he sets a big brown cardboard box at the 100 yard line, it was about big enough to have held a stove or small refrigerator. No target on it, just the box. At the firing line he lets go three quick shots offhand from his Model 94 .30-30, vintage unknown but definitely "vintage". He retrieves the target and there's about a 12" triangle centered on the box. "Looky there, Martha", he says to his wife sitting in the truck, "she still shoots where she did last year." With that he drives away.
Going home back to Logan I noticed that same old green pickup parked in front of a ranch house off the road. Nailed to the barn standing next to the house were more big mule deer and elk racks than I could count driving past at 55. I mean, the whole front of the barn was covered with them.
Circumstantial evidence for sure. Maybe he was just visiting (though there were no other vehicles present), or maybe inside the house he had a big oak and glass gun case with all of his Weatherbys and pre-64 Winchesters in it, but I doubt it.
One of the most used rifles in my collection is an old Marlin M-1893 in 30-30, dating from the very early 1900's. An elderly former-Marine friend was cleaning some junk out of his barn when I stopped for a visit. Knowing I was a gun guy he pointed out the filthy rifle hanging on the wall hidden by other junk and told me to take it off his hands.
When I got home and cleaned it, there was little rust but lots of crud and dirt on the exterior. The resulting patina looks very good on an old rifle like this. Think cowboys and Indians type of patina. The interior was good and the bore was quite worn, but no horrible pits.
The finish was worn off most of the metal and wood. The carry-wear was rather extreme. This was a rifle that had been used a lot. I asked my friend where he got it? In some long-ago trade with other stuff, and it had been on the barn wall over twenty or thirty years. That is all he knew.
After the cleaning I took it to the range to shoot it. I was pleased to see it produce a nice round seven or eight shot group at 100 yards of no more than three inches from sandbags with the open sights.
However, that nice group was a full eight inches left of point of aim at 100 yards. Close examination of the original factory sights showed them both centered with no indication that either of them had ever been moved, deliberately or otherwise, since the day the rifle left the factory. There was no indication that the barrel was bent. Everything looked straight.
It took considerable effort to free them to adjust the point of impact to agree with the sights at 100 yards.
I can only wonder how many hunts that rifle went on, or how many deer it may have taken, and whether the owner knew it shot to the left and compensated for it, or just never knew.
After all, it would hit a milk can at 50 yards. Maybe that is all that was ever asked of it.
You criticized Fred Willis for deferring shots under 200 yards and therefore preferring shots over 200 yards as being unsportsmanlike. I believe you may have missed the fact that he was talking about chucks. Most of us agree with you if you are talking about game animals.
For varmints most of us will take shots much further than that. If you choose to stalk all of your varmints to less than 200 yards, that is fine. I do that, too, sometimes, if I am using an iron-sighted 30-30 that day, on ground squirrels. In any case, welcome to the fire.
I stand corrected. I thought he was talking about big game animals. I am sorry, Fred Willis!
I doubt the rifles you shooting are out-of-the-box sporters, with factory ammo selected because it was the cheapest at the local store. Which is why I also doubt you'd take a box of ammo to hit the dot.
c
My bad. I re-read your post, which I completely misunderstood.
I thought you were bashing the two shot sight-in deal...
This whole thing about what a rifle/load/shooter "can" do versus what the combo "will" do is even sillier in many respects that the threads about killing large ungulates with tiny little bullets/minimal quantities of powder (small cases)/great distances. "Can" it happen? Sure, obviously. "Will" it work reliably? Just as surely as a 3-shot 1/2" rifle won't shoot larger 10-shot groups is the probably the most likely answer.
I was speaking to the minority of folks this sight who might make the same miakes as I did years ago. Taking things to literally and exhausting hard to come by and afford supplies trying to achieve objectives that don't benefit their specific needs. John Barsness and Fred Willis stated what I tried to so much better than I did. Group size is defined on what your intentions as a shooter are. For the average Joe, who isn't a bench rest competitor or a long range varmint shooter, I think my original post has some merit. If that makes me an idiot, so be it. John, bought and read a couple of your books, and looking forward to your next loading publication
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
I routinely do this.
I do this from time to time and then verify/tweak with groups... unless I know how snug the gun shoots already...
After coming up with a good, final load for my old Remington pump M-141 in .35 Rem I set out to take a ground squirrel with it. I finally got a fat one at about 80 yards.
No, the big, slow bullet didn't blow him to pieces. No, it didn't blow him in two, either.
But that was the most turned-inside-out squirrel I have ever shot, from end to end. Only half his tail was showing and only part of his head. Quite a sight.
Only a loony would deliberately set out to shoot a squirrel with a .35 Rem.
Guilty as charged.
Dunno... wife shot a fox squirrel here with a 378 wtby mag... we did find a rear leg and part of the tail.....
Suspected you might have misunderstood. But I probably should have also mentioned the scopes on their rifles were $75 specials.
I use the 2-shot sight-in a lot, along with the 1-shot scope check--as long as I know the rifle's level of accuracy.
In fact many years ago, before "turret" scopes were almost never heard of outside the military (reliable laser rangefinders hadn't yet appeared on the civilian market) my wife and I went to the range to check the scopes on the two New Ultra Light Arms rifles we planned to use on an upcoming hunt. Back then we sighted-in 2" high at 100, then checked the POI with the plex-type reticle out to several hundred yards, and actually killed big game consistently with that "primitive" method.
We already knew both rifles well, including their level of accuracy, and when Eileen touched off a shot at 100 yards I wasn't surprised to see a hole appear in the target 2" above point of aim. (In fact, that particlar rifle did essentially the same thing, every year, for nine years before the scope finally died.)
Then I sat down and shot once with my rifle, and the bullet hole cut hers. We decided we were good to go.
Agree on the 2 shot sight in, as my uncle taught me that one over 30 years ago. MD, you mention of how the plex reticle subtends, and how to use it, which is how I grew up hunting with my 7mags out here in the wide open country I hunt.
"So yes, it depends on what kind of shooter you are, but also on the level of accuracy required for what kind of shooting you plan on doing." hunting the neurotic coues deer here in az, i find myself always looking for more accuracy. they live in very rugged country, and are generally shot at quite a distance, and they are a small target. minute of whitetail is relative to the locale.
Agree on the 2 shot sight in, as my uncle taught me that one over 30 years ago. MD, you mention of how the plex reticle subtends, and how to use it, which is how I grew up hunting with my 7mags out here in the wide open country I hunt.
A 4X Leupold with Duplex,on top of a 300 or 7mm mag,and a 600 yard elk or mule deer is in deep trouble.
Not to say there aren't better ways of going about it today.
I sure do agree with your post. Perhaps we need to clarify a point. Many if not most of us worked very hard as younger men and did not have the time or resources to elevate our shooting skills.
I think certain factors bring us to where we are today.Without the property to shoot chucks today, I would have given up shooting years ago. The truth is, a very small percentage of the shooters have access.
Thus, if it were not for the target shooters, we would not have the ability to extend our shooting and increase our knowledge. Today, we have rifles and scopes along with a range finder, that allow us to make shots pin pointed to exactly where we want to hit.
When I take new shooters to shoot chucks with me, they quickly realize that 200 yards is very easy with a carefully sighted rifle. Ir ia so easy with a good rest, it almost feels like cheating.
My youngest son, who is 54, went with me this last season three times. One the first trip, he made chuck kills to 300+ yards and was hooked. On the last trip, he killed a chuck at 458 yards on the second shot. He took direction very well I would say.
I certainly think that everyone needs to seek their own level with shooting. Not at any time, did I suggest that doing all the preparation was necessary to having fun and attaining your personal goals in shooting
I certainly think that everyone needs to seek their own level with shooting. Not at any time, did I suggest that doing all the preparation was necessary to having fun and attaining your personal goals in shooting
Thanks for saying what I was thinking. Between brain and keyboard it sometimes gets lost in translation, and gets misinterpreted.
The chuck shooting is one of a handful on my (I hate this term) bucket list. I would love to go west for an outing of chuck shooting.
For myself the first shot out of a cold oiled barrel is the most important. IE the first shot at game. When working up loads 3 at 100 works for myself. Not a benchrest guy, but do like an accurate rifle. MOA at 100 is my benchmark for accuracy. Not good enough for all, but for what I do it is.
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
I work our club range on sightin days, which are open to the public. Especially with new or once a year shooters I use a one shot & adjust method. After one shot I make a 1/2 adjustment. I continue this until the single shot lands within a 1" radius of the POA at 100 yd. Then three shots to confirm. Sometimes the three shots say the rifle/shooter/ammo/scope combo are not good to go, but usually this method gets the shooter sighted in with the fewest number of rounds.
SamOlson, it does my heart good to see you shoot that well at 450 yards with a hunting rifle. I remember the days, when we would set up a target and drive back to longer ranges and guess the distance. Surprisingly,we did pretty good at both shooting and guessing. Had an old Bushnell Scope Chief with a BDC and we had a very good time.
The shooting you do sure adds to the fun and confidence. Congradulations on a very good target
![[Linked Image]](http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww15/Donmartin29/0017.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s37.photobucket.com/user/montanasam/media/A%202015/Fall%202015%20003_1.jpg.html)