WHat the best or recommended range for checking the accuracy of ammo and to check if you your gun likes the ammo you're running?
R
R
Range Report Ammo Accuracy
- Thread starter rickp
- Start date
Re: Ammo Accuracy
I generally start at 100 yd with 4 x 5-shot groups, also determining MVs at the same time. Then, I usually pick a couple of the better grouping loads and take them out further (300, 600, etc).
I generally start at 100 yd with 4 x 5-shot groups, also determining MVs at the same time. Then, I usually pick a couple of the better grouping loads and take them out further (300, 600, etc).
Re: Ammo Accuracy
If I shoot a new ammo, I feel I need to get dope for a handful of distances otherwise that ammo may not do me any good after 2-300 yards. So I start at 100 and work out to at least 700. In the process it also lets you check accuracy at further distances. Sometimes people report good accuracy at 100 and terrible performance at 600+
It usually only takes a few rounds at each distance so your not out a ton of ammo either. Just my $.02
If I shoot a new ammo, I feel I need to get dope for a handful of distances otherwise that ammo may not do me any good after 2-300 yards. So I start at 100 and work out to at least 700. In the process it also lets you check accuracy at further distances. Sometimes people report good accuracy at 100 and terrible performance at 600+
It usually only takes a few rounds at each distance so your not out a ton of ammo either. Just my $.02
Re: Ammo Accuracy
Being one of the unlucky people who only has a few hundred yards, over the years I have found that if I can find a load that shoots well at 100 and 300 yards that it shoots well farther out as well. Tested this method to 1650 yards and it's held true so far for me.
Being one of the unlucky people who only has a few hundred yards, over the years I have found that if I can find a load that shoots well at 100 and 300 yards that it shoots well farther out as well. Tested this method to 1650 yards and it's held true so far for me.
Re: Ammo Accuracy
I have found the same as Rob01 has...once I find a solid load at a 100 I test it at 300-400 yds...with the real good loads I have noticed they seem to keep the same accuracy node out to distance. In other words, if i get 1/4 MOA at 100 i am still getting that out to 400, if it tails off it is just a tad, its usaully me more than the ammo.
I usually only paper test to 400.
I have found the same as Rob01 has...once I find a solid load at a 100 I test it at 300-400 yds...with the real good loads I have noticed they seem to keep the same accuracy node out to distance. In other words, if i get 1/4 MOA at 100 i am still getting that out to 400, if it tails off it is just a tad, its usaully me more than the ammo.
I usually only paper test to 400.
Re: Ammo Accuracy
I also like 100 and 300. I test most loads at 300. 300 will minimize any wind effects, and most all bullets have settled down by 300 yards. Once I find a good load, I like to test it on paper zero'd at 100 and out to about 400-600 yards. Then I know for sure it is a good load.
I also like 100 and 300. I test most loads at 300. 300 will minimize any wind effects, and most all bullets have settled down by 300 yards. Once I find a good load, I like to test it on paper zero'd at 100 and out to about 400-600 yards. Then I know for sure it is a good load.
Re: Ammo Accuracy
I rough zero and shoot a group at 100yd, then move out to 200 for definitive testing. The change in zero is recorded and retained for comparison against ballistic spreadsheet info.
These days I seldom shoot beyond 200 yd and also seldom travel outside a one-hour travel radius. That's what's available to me, and going further could be unwise in light of both my and my Wife's medical issues. Each of us needs to able to reach and support the other in a reasonable duration.
I will generally shoot several FV200 target COFs and if the individual targets score in the high 40's I'm very pleased. The targets are 5/V scoring targets with a 1" V-ring, 2" 5-Ring, and 4" 4-Ring. The COF places ten rounds on each target. For my own practical purposes, that's satisfactory.
The Pejsa Spreadsheet I use will print a stock table (drop/drift chart) at selected distance increments, on out to the distance where the bullet goes subsonic. I have never been a disciple of the computed POI. For my purposes it serves OK for getting On Paper at known distances, and for more precision than that, I choose to refine my zero using observed impacts. Usually, the chart can get me to a reasonable starting point.
Rob's experience with extending known results out to greater distances essentially parallels mine.
Theoretically, dispersion follows a cone projection. In a perfect world that would be a reliable concept, but in practice, it's not so simple.
Like the second law of thermodynamics implies, nature favors disorder over order, and projections become less reliable as distances increase.
Put more simply, a 1/2MOA rifle at 100yd can be relied upon for about 2MOA of accuracy at 1000yd, in practical terms. That's actually pretty good performance in the real world, and in prectical terms, if I can get all my rounds into the 4-Ring on the FV200 target at 200, I'm shooting a practical 2MOA, and I'm quite happy enough. Last W/E, in FV200 comp, all but 1 of 40 rounds for score stayed inside the 4" circle at 200yd.
Getting all my rounds into 2MOA and half of those into 1MOA is gonna allow me to defeat pretty much any target I'm likely to want to defeat.
Refining accuracy beyond such standards is not productive, IMHO. My lifestyle, occupation, and pursuits do not require more accuracy. Obtaining such requires more distraction than I choose to allow from the primary task of maintaining and employing my accuracy assets in what I consider a satisfactory manner.
Many will undoubtedly disagree with such a standard, and I respect that.
Greg
I rough zero and shoot a group at 100yd, then move out to 200 for definitive testing. The change in zero is recorded and retained for comparison against ballistic spreadsheet info.
These days I seldom shoot beyond 200 yd and also seldom travel outside a one-hour travel radius. That's what's available to me, and going further could be unwise in light of both my and my Wife's medical issues. Each of us needs to able to reach and support the other in a reasonable duration.
I will generally shoot several FV200 target COFs and if the individual targets score in the high 40's I'm very pleased. The targets are 5/V scoring targets with a 1" V-ring, 2" 5-Ring, and 4" 4-Ring. The COF places ten rounds on each target. For my own practical purposes, that's satisfactory.
The Pejsa Spreadsheet I use will print a stock table (drop/drift chart) at selected distance increments, on out to the distance where the bullet goes subsonic. I have never been a disciple of the computed POI. For my purposes it serves OK for getting On Paper at known distances, and for more precision than that, I choose to refine my zero using observed impacts. Usually, the chart can get me to a reasonable starting point.
Rob's experience with extending known results out to greater distances essentially parallels mine.
Theoretically, dispersion follows a cone projection. In a perfect world that would be a reliable concept, but in practice, it's not so simple.
Like the second law of thermodynamics implies, nature favors disorder over order, and projections become less reliable as distances increase.
Put more simply, a 1/2MOA rifle at 100yd can be relied upon for about 2MOA of accuracy at 1000yd, in practical terms. That's actually pretty good performance in the real world, and in prectical terms, if I can get all my rounds into the 4-Ring on the FV200 target at 200, I'm shooting a practical 2MOA, and I'm quite happy enough. Last W/E, in FV200 comp, all but 1 of 40 rounds for score stayed inside the 4" circle at 200yd.
Getting all my rounds into 2MOA and half of those into 1MOA is gonna allow me to defeat pretty much any target I'm likely to want to defeat.
Refining accuracy beyond such standards is not productive, IMHO. My lifestyle, occupation, and pursuits do not require more accuracy. Obtaining such requires more distraction than I choose to allow from the primary task of maintaining and employing my accuracy assets in what I consider a satisfactory manner.
Many will undoubtedly disagree with such a standard, and I respect that.
Greg
Similar threads
