Gun magazines testing for accuracy. Larger round counts.

[Bart B.]

If ones 3-shot groups with the same stuff fired at different times are all the same size and their centers are always at the same place relative to where the rifle was aimed when each one was fired, then by all ways and means, shoot only 3 shots per test group.

Then write a scientific article explaining how that happens.

[DPris]

Which would never sell to a mainstream gunmag editor & would not be of any interest to 95% of the readership thereof.

Again- this is NOT a scientific lab analysis.

Three 3-shot groups will tell me what I & most readers need to know about the average rifle.
If you need more, DIY.

It'll tell me if I can expect a half-inch at 100 yards as my Weatherby Vanguard .223 will do, or if the best I'm likely to get is 4 inches, as the new AK I worked with Thursday did.

The business is what it is, pays what it pays, and if a writer expects to make a profit as opposed to just indulging a hobby, there are simply certain realities that have to be faced.

One company I used to sell to paid $400 per. They probably still are, which is one reason I fired 'em.
For that $400, I tried to give the reader good value for his or her money when they bought the mag, but I'll tell you I was not going to spend six months & 5,000 rounds on any gun I covered in it.

People gripe at spending $10 for a mag now.
If you want the type of depth you're talking about here, I'm gonna have to be paid at least double what I'm being paid now & you're gonna have to be spending triple per issue to buy the result.

There are many limitations to the traditional print format that writers AND readers have to live with.
Just the nature of the beast.

This is also why some of us are expanding to Kindle formats, where you still won't see the technical levels or "My Six Years In Darkest Africa With The Ruger 10/22 And How It Saved My Life Numerous Times" kinda stuff.

Time, expenses, and return on both will continue to be factors.
With the Kindles, we at least have more room to cover what we think's of general interest.
Denis

[reynolds357]

Because in a $350 dollar rifle, the barrel and action are not perfectly squared. There is stress between the two, thus heat moves POI. In addition, the barrels in that price range are not perfectly stress relieved. My favorite cheap rifle is the TC Venture. 10 shot groups are not wonderful, 2.5". Leave the same target up and shoot 20 rounds into the target over several days and the 100 yard group is 1/2". Two groups in that 20 were about 3/8" low, but that was due to humidity on those days. The total group would be 7/8" but that was not the fault of the rifle.

[Snyper]

If ones 3-shot groups with the same stuff fired at different times are all the same size and their centers are always at the same place relative to where the rifle was aimed when each one was fired, then by all ways and means, shoot only 3 shots per test group.

Then write a scientific article explaining how that happens.

If all those things happened, why would you need a "scientific article" to tell you your rifle is properly set up, and your ammo is consistant?

[Bart B.]

The scientific article isn't for the person that did that.

It's for people who believe that's impossible. Are you a non-believer and one of them?

[HiBC]

No doubt it is a different world for those in competition.
They are looking for 1/8 MOA improvement,and the stakes are higher.

For what I do,if I go out with 5 rds each charge,increasing 1/2 gr per step,with 4 different powders,that may be 30 rds per powder.

By the time I shoot those up,I will not have perfect,definitive results,but I will have a pretty good idea ,combined with my chronograph,which powder or maybe two,I want to pursue.

If I shoot 3 shot groups to sight in at 100 then 300 yds,and each group is about the same size in MOA,say 9 shots each target ,fine tuning the last click of adjustment,or even 12(hunting scopes may not give exactly 1/2 MOA every click ,every time),I have a collection of 6 or 8 three shot groups.

Is that a scientific evaluation of the accuracy potential of the rifle?No.

Have I proven anything?Not really.

If I shoot 3 consecutive 3 shot groups at 300 yds ,each that stays inside a 3 in circle,each time I adjust the scope,can I call it a 1 MOA rifle?No


Have I found out I have a good,accurate hunting rifle ,well sighted in,that I can trust to deliver what I need....pretty much

If three or 6 months or a year later I check 300 yd zero and its still there,Yes,

a "trust but verify" relationship has developed.

I don't much care if I can argue its a .718 MOA rifle,I won't make the claim.

For my purposes,a trend of consistent 3 shot groups,tells me what to expect,close enough.

Could I tell you a Sierra MK 168 gr is outshooting a Nosler Custom Comp 168 gr by .067 MOA?Not a chance.

But in my world,that does not matter.


Shooting 3 shot groups vs 5 shot groups costs 40% less in ammo,and increases barrel life at least 40 %.

That,to me,matters. YMMV

[Snyper]

The scientific article isn't for the person that did that.

It's for people who believe that's impossible. Are you a non-believer and one of them?

I believe none of that has anything to do with this topic

[RC20]

I think the bottom line is per when I hunted,

I went to the range, shot the rifle 3 times to be sure it was still on from the previous year. Most of the time it was.

the one time I did not I was just carrying for bear protection. Yippee, there was a range on the way out of the Berg, could not hit squat at 50 yds.

Oh well, just have to wait until I can put the muzzle in his chin and that was pretty much the range in the brush so.... It was shooting about 1.5 ft high at 100.

Ok, rambling done, 3 shots is fine for hunting. Other than one really badly done hunt I never shot more than one. Good setup, good situation, ranges under 250 yds, rested. Good.

3 shots tells me all I need to know on a hunting gun (does it repeat closely when I do my check in? yep, good to go)

Can I hit sub MOA at 150 yds non bench, nope. So an off rifle may even compensate for my unsteady aim.

3 shots is ok. Not what I want now that I am bench shooting, but that's a whole different story and quality of gun.

A low cost RA is good enough to hunt with and you get what you pay for. Want better, then it costs. 75% just want to hit something 150 yds or less. Good enough and no issues.

[Picher]

For a hunting rifle to be accurate, the first shot is the most critical. It doesn't matter if the next twenty shots make a half-inch group. If a person is lucky enough to have a hunting rifle that places the first shot in a group of three or five, he's got a winner!

My dentist found out that I'm a target shooter and longer-range hunter, so he asked why his Browning Lever-Action prints groups to a different spot when fired from a Lead-Sled than from another rest. Most of us know that the BLR isn't free-floated, and if fired from different rests, usually prints differently.

I told him to sight in his rifle using the same rest as he used for hunting; that when I sight-in such rifles for hunters, I hold the forend in my hand and rest it on a sandbag. He's a happy hunter now.

[Bart B.]

Any rifle fired from different rests, or people, will print to some other place. Zeros differ across all sorts of rifle holding and resting things. Which is why rarely do two people have the same zero with a given rifle and ammo with either scope or metallic sights.

No, people do not look through sights differently. Light from the target travels the same through all types of sights. Our eyes just focus that light on the eye retina the same for everyone; with or without corrective lenses.

[603Country]

What I find extremely interesting is that DPris writes for gun mags. How interesting. I've always wondered what a gun writer says when a tested rifle really is a dog. I was just reading an article on the Kimber Mountain Ascent. Great looking rifle, but the 5 shot groups were in the 1.5 to 2 inch range. At first glance, that type grouping would not interest me in the slightest, but then I remembered that really light rifle I once had and how tough it was to shoot well. And, I have to think that with specially worked up handloads it would shoot much much better. And...no, I'm not hinting that the rifle is a dog. I'd love to have one.

As for 3, 5, and 10 shot groups, I tend to do the 3 shot groups. If they are right where they should be and in a tidy little group, I really can't see any benefit from shooting a bunch more. I know all I need to know, which is it shoots where it needs to and does it well, just like it did last Tuesday, or whatever day.

In just a bit, I'm going to grab my 223 and go shoot a 2 shot group. Once with the 40 gr BT and once with the 64 gr Nosler BSB. Last time I shot them, they all grouped in the same place quite nicely. If the two are still right where I want them to be and are side by side, I'll be happy, and to heck with the statistics. I will call a Mulligan and reshoot if I pull one of the shots.

[DPris]

What this gunwriter says when a gun is really a dog:

Dear Editor,
Gun is not worth writing about, article cancelled.

Dear Maker,
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't do anything with this gun because it [broke, was so poorly built, shot so bad, malfunctioned soooo much, etc.], article cancelled, please arrange for return shipping.

Denis

[Ridgerunner665]

That works too...

[DPris]

Unfortunate when it happens, but it does happen.
Returned a .38 snub a couple weeks ago, cylinder lockup was so loose I & my gunsmith both considered it unsafe to shoot.

Had to do that at least a couple dozen times over the years, among several makers & all different types of guns.
Denis

[Bart B.]

Some years ago, a friend told me about his buddy's experience in an interview for an outdoor magazine's shooting section job as a writer. The magazine editor asked how he would write about the accuracy of a rifle that shot groups like the ones on several targets placed in front of him. After carefully examining them, he said he would write that the rifle would keep all shots inside 3 inches at 100 yards as those targets were so tested. The editior asked why he didn't measure each group, then calculate the average and put that number in an article about it. The answer was to the tune of; "It only shoots average groups part of the time. I want people to know what to expect all of the time." That's when the editor cancelled the interview and he was told he didn't qualify.

[DPris]

I print the best group with each load from that session.

There are several ways you can lay out accuracy results, and this again is a part of the imperfect nature of the system.

What I get as a best group with each load reflects ONLY what I was able to pull off with that load in that gun in my hands with my eyes, my shooting conditions, and my skills (or lack there-of ).

It does not in any way mean an identical gun will do exactly the same thing for anybody else, with those or any other loads, in their hands & their shooting conditions.

I've been able to stick to "best group" results in print so far.
I personally think they're a better indicator than averaging out, or tossing out the farthest hole, and so on, as some do.

I think averages can be misleading.
Denis

[603Country]

And apparently my memory can be misleading also. I went and shot the 40 gr BT and the 64 gr BSB alternately, and I didn't stop at a total of 2 shots. The 64 grainer shot about 1/2 inch above the 40 grainer, and my notes (when I checked) said exactly that. So my memory is faulty, but there is an interesting data point here that I'll share. If you had tested my loads in my rifle, and if you shot them just like I just did, you'd be inclined to say that the 40 grainers shot a nice 3/4 inch group and right on the target dot. If you had shot the 64 grainer, you'd be inclined to say that they shot into the same darn hole (slightly elongated horizontally). So is the rifle a 3/4 inch gun or a 1/8 inch shooter (center to center)? Well, it's neither I suppose. But that 64 grainer sure did shoot good with that one hole, which wasn't even a ragged looking hole, about 1/2 inch above the point of aim. Man...all I need now is a pig for testing purposes.

The rifle used is a Ruger Hawkeye with a 6-18 Leupold VX2. Stainless with the synthetic stock. Only rifle I have that I hunt with that has not been at all tweaked by a gunsmith, though it does have a Timney trigger that I put in it.

[Bart B.]

Publishing only the smallest hunting rifle or ammo group shot is akin to only publishing the smallest benchrest match groups. Rarely, if ever, are they equalled or bettered. And all the rest are (much, much) larger. Qualifies as another example of misleading advertising.

[DPris]

No, it shows the BEST that gun did.
It is, in no sense of the term, false advertising.

You think only showing the WORST group a gun did would appeal to readers?

If I'm having a bad day & throw the occasional flyer till I & the gun settle in, that flyer skews the averages in the wrong direction & it may or may not be the gun's fault.

That's why I shoot three groups each load & show the best one.
Not rare to have something like 2 inches with two of those & maybe 1 inch with the third.

That best group doesn't mean the gun or shooter can or will shoot that tight all day long, it merely shows THAT sample & THAT shooter was capable of three shots into an inch with THAT load on THAT occasion, when everything came together just right.

Nothing misleading at all.
Denis

[Bart B.]

Well then, shoot a hundred 3-shot groups and publish the one with all shots overlapping; a sub-caliber group. It also shows what can be done.

If everything comes together just right, all the variables will cancel each other out and the group will be a single hole measuring zero MOA.

This whole issue reeks of EPA fuel economy stuff that few, if any, vehicle owners got. The EPA even messed up stating "fuel economy" without a monetary unit in the expression. Fuel economy is distance per monetary unit or monetary units per distance unit. Miles per gallon is fuel efficiency.

[DPris]

Bart, as I've repeatedly said- a gunmag review is no in-depth scientific lab analysis written up for supremely technical journals.

It's an introduction & an overview.

No time, no money for what far too many of you seem to want.

I read gunmags for many years before I ever wrote a word for one.
Still do.

I find seeing the best a gun could do in a review was far more useful & far more interesting than seeing a compilation of averages.

Show me the best a given product is capable of, and I can plug that into my own decision-making process far better than its "average" performance.

Any reader with "average" ( ) intelligence should be capable of understanding a gun review is just a look at features, impressions, and limited performance evaluations.

It is designed to tell you about the gun, not to conduct in-depth lab work that'd raise the subsequent cost of the mag it ran in far above what the mass market would be willing to spend.

It is what it is.
I've answered the original question & discussed other issues.

As I say every time the gunmag bashing comes up- If it ain't good enough for you & you feel you get NOTHING useful for your money, DON'T buy the mags.

Otherwise, take what you can get from them, buy the gun, buy your own lab equipment, live with the gun, sleep with the gun, take it to Africa, take it to Siberia, take it to Camp Perry, spend thousands on ammunition, shoot it till your shoulder drops off, run it with 30 different scopes, and then YOU write it all up for US.
Denis

[Snyper]

Well then, shoot a hundred 3-shot groups and publish the one with all shots overlapping; a sub-caliber group. It also shows what can be done.

You supply the ammo and I'll be happy to shoot lots of groups, although you keep trying to make unrealistic points that have nothing to do with the actual topic

[603Country]

Bart, who is undoubtedly a very knowledgable fellow, is just hung up on that 10 shot group thing. Do I really think that I could put another 6 shots into that tiny little group I shot with the 64 gr BSB? No. But 3 is a good number into one hole, and I'm quite happy about it. What do I know from this? Well...I suspect that this is a good load and should work just fine on pigs. I didn't say that this is 'an eighth inch shooter'. I wish it was.

[reynolds357]

DPris, I have a .45-70 that will consistently shoot 4" 10 shot groups at 100 yards. One time, I shot a 5/8", 3 shot 100 yard group. If you were writing it up, would it be a 4 minute or a 5/8 minute rifle?

[DPris]

Neither.
I don't use that terminology.
Denis