The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Roman Knoll · June 9, 2002, 03:32 AM

As a freelancing gun-writer, I am quite often asked to “test” hunting firearms. Great fun for me but as far as providing useful information for my readers it is exercise in futility. It is simply impossible with available means and basing on single example to form any educated opinion on durability of given model of a rifle or shotgun.

The usual part of such test is shooting for accuracy from the bench. Some people shoot three shot groups some other five shot groups. Whatever the routine, it is more a test of tester’s shooting skills than objective evaluation of accuracy of the firearm. After seeing how accuracy tests are conducted at some manufactures’ shooting ranges, I am fully convinced that almost none of gun writers is able to duplicate such conditions.

In most cases, so called test are just a loose impressions about general “feel” of the firearm in question, biased by writer’s own preferences. Of course, “field test” when gun writer is send on expensive hunt paid by manufacturer is even more suspicious.

In my opinion, the whole idea of checking and evaluating hunting rifle accuracy solely by shooting groups from a bench is seriously flawed. Not that it is something wrong with tight groups. Tight groups are better then big groups. Unfortunately, miniscule groups, shot at controlled condition from the bench cannot fully measure usefulness of a rifle for hunting.

Hunting rifle is not just a rifle but a whole rig, consisting of rifle, sight mount and optical or electronic sights. Properly selected ammunition is also a part of the whole system. Practical accuracy of hunting rifle is combined product of all aforementioned elements as well as ergonomic properties of the stock and its fit to shooter’s anatomy.

Hunting rig is a tool enabling the operator to hit a target of given size on given shooting distance. Flaws in single element of such system, seriously limit its usability or in some cases render it totally unusable.

In real hunting scenarios, most shooters can fire no more than two consecutive shots with reasonable possibility of hitting game at the right spot. I most instance full magazine cannonade is panic shooting after fleeing, wounded game in vain hope to hit something. In this circumstances it simply does not matter what size groups the rifle prints from the bench.

Ability to hold zero regardless unavoidable rough handling in the woods or during transport is far more important than spread of groups shot from the bench. This is dependent on quality of sight mount and scope. Type of reticule and scope magnification dictate practical distances. For example, it would be difficult to shoot far with rifle equipped with scope with thick crosshair. On other hand, whatever magnification, a scope with thin duplex crosshair is practically useless for night hunting, typical for Central Europe.

Roman

June 9, 2002, 03:32 AM	#1
Roman Knoll Member Join Date: December 28, 2001 Location: Lidingö, Sweden Posts: 95	Hunting rifle accuracy redefined. As a freelancing gun-writer, I am quite often asked to “test” hunting firearms. Great fun for me but as far as providing useful information for my readers it is exercise in futility. It is simply impossible with available means and basing on single example to form any educated opinion on durability of given model of a rifle or shotgun. The usual part of such test is shooting for accuracy from the bench. Some people shoot three shot groups some other five shot groups. Whatever the routine, it is more a test of tester’s shooting skills than objective evaluation of accuracy of the firearm. After seeing how accuracy tests are conducted at some manufactures’ shooting ranges, I am fully convinced that almost none of gun writers is able to duplicate such conditions. In most cases, so called test are just a loose impressions about general “feel” of the firearm in question, biased by writer’s own preferences. Of course, “field test” when gun writer is send on expensive hunt paid by manufacturer is even more suspicious. In my opinion, the whole idea of checking and evaluating hunting rifle accuracy solely by shooting groups from a bench is seriously flawed. Not that it is something wrong with tight groups. Tight groups are better then big groups. Unfortunately, miniscule groups, shot at controlled condition from the bench cannot fully measure usefulness of a rifle for hunting. Hunting rifle is not just a rifle but a whole rig, consisting of rifle, sight mount and optical or electronic sights. Properly selected ammunition is also a part of the whole system. Practical accuracy of hunting rifle is combined product of all aforementioned elements as well as ergonomic properties of the stock and its fit to shooter’s anatomy. Hunting rig is a tool enabling the operator to hit a target of given size on given shooting distance. Flaws in single element of such system, seriously limit its usability or in some cases render it totally unusable. In real hunting scenarios, most shooters can fire no more than two consecutive shots with reasonable possibility of hitting game at the right spot. I most instance full magazine cannonade is panic shooting after fleeing, wounded game in vain hope to hit something. In this circumstances it simply does not matter what size groups the rifle prints from the bench. Ability to hold zero regardless unavoidable rough handling in the woods or during transport is far more important than spread of groups shot from the bench. This is dependent on quality of sight mount and scope. Type of reticule and scope magnification dictate practical distances. For example, it would be difficult to shoot far with rifle equipped with scope with thick crosshair. On other hand, whatever magnification, a scope with thin duplex crosshair is practically useless for night hunting, typical for Central Europe. Roman