Define accuracy or how accurate?

[ricky708]

not sure how to word this? if your gun puts every shot thru the same hole (hypothetically) but you miss poa by 1" do you call that MOA @ 100yds? I know, I know its a one holer with a moa shooter. I have guns that will shoot one ragged hole at 100yds but past that wind,etc. makes putting a bullet to poa tough. I have seen lots of steel with nice groups off to one side,high or low. A shilloutte at 500yds with a 2.5" group on the right shoulder, 1/2 moa or 1.5moa because you were 7.5" from poa? How do you call it? Depending on how you look at it there's either ALOT of 1/2 moa guns or the same amount of
2-3 moa guns?

 

[oneshotkyle]

Re: Define accuracy

moa for me is the group no matter where on the target. poa is the owners fault for not takin enought time to dial in the scope perfect. i see this alot on many forums and have always wonder why someone can take the time to shot one ragged hole 2" to the left of bullseye at 100YDS. but not put a couple of moa in the scope to correct it.

 

[ricky708]

Re: Define accuracy

maybe I should have asked how accurate are you? I have seen alot of guys with guns that will put 5 in a dime at 100yds then couldn't hit a 4" target at 200yds with a 10mph breeze.
Group shooting is for paper and equipment testing in my opinion, and I use 3 shots it can only get worse from there right? I have one hole rifles, but I don't drive them that way every time out under all conditions. I would say out to 800yds I average 2-3moa probably closer to 5moa past that, thats all shots including the first. SOOOO really thats as good as any of my guns shoot, because they don't shoot themselves yet.

 

[rideHPD]

Re: Define accuracy

I find it to be a very simple question. Did you hit what you wanted to? There's always room to improve, it's just a matter of whether that matters to you or if it's necessary/practical for your needs. Do you need/want to hit a smaller target? Well then you're not accurate enough. If you're happy spraying rounds into a barn door, that's your deal. A small group only indicates precision, where they land is accuracies ballgame. What results are acceptable?

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Define accuracy

Depends, whether its sitting (my best postition) or standing on my hind legs.

I don't shoot from the bench so I don't shoot itty bitty groups.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

Groups get smaller, as Kraig alluded, as the stability of the ground is better tranmitted into the position.

For me, accuracy is synonymous with zero dispersion. Zero dispersion is what I'm shooting for; and, it is what I expect, to any distance, and in any condition, or position I'm shooting from. Of course, the bullet will eventually begin to fly erratically and begin to tumble so my expectations are limited. At any rate, zero dispersion is nothing more than actually hitting where aimed. Thing is, most folks here cannot hit where aimed unless the distance to target is close enough to mask the shooter's angular errors produced by having something less than consistent control of the rifle from line of bore at rifle rest to line of bore at bullet departure. What's interesting is very few here mention zero dispersion, apparently its just too lofty a goal, so the standard becomes something under an MOA, but who's measuring, unless you have zero dispersion, the reality is you missed; and, you are not yet a brilliant shooter.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

Zero dispersion is a nice thought, but not actually possible, given the constraints of ammunition manufacturing. Even if the shooter IS absolutely perfect, the ammo will never be. Benchrest shooters get pretty close at 100 yards, with some record groups just over a caliber size hole, but you won't see any .000's shot at 300+

Accuracy and precision are two seperate things. Precision relates to group size and repeatability, accuracy relates to POA vs. POI. Ideally, we are both precise and accurate, the group is as small as possible and centered on the POA.

Despite what many claim, there are fairly few 1/2 MOA guns, and fewer 1/2 MOA shooters. A true 1/2 MOA gun AVERAGES 1/2 MOA for a number of groups, say 10 or 20 5 shot groups. Shooting two groups of 1/2 MOA and eight groups of 1 MOA does not mean you have a 1/2 MOA gun "if I do my part". It just means you got lucky twice.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zero dispersion is a nice thought, but not actually possible, given the constraints of ammunition manufacturing. Even if the shooter IS absolutely perfect, the ammo will never be. Benchrest shooters get pretty close at 100 yards, with some record groups just over a caliber size hole, but you won't see any .000's shot at 300+

Accuracy and precision are two seperate things. Precision relates to group size and repeatability, accuracy relates to POA vs. POI. Ideally, we are both precise and accurate, the group is as small as possible and centered on the POA.

Despite what many claim, there are fairly few 1/2 MOA guns, and fewer 1/2 MOA shooters. A true 1/2 MOA gun AVERAGES 1/2 MOA for a number of groups, say 10 or 20 5 shot groups. Shooting two groups of 1/2 MOA and eight groups of 1 MOA does not mean you have a 1/2 MOA gun "if I do my part". It just means you got lucky twice. </div></div>


Unless the shooter understands zero dispersion is possible, and it is, the shooter will not get there. It's like the winner never quits and the quitter never wins sort of thing. I've blown out enough spindles at 1000 yards to know what is possible.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Define accuracy

I like the concept of "zero dispersion" but that sounds like a jazzy marketing term.

Even with super-custom rifles worth 7 times the price of base precision rigs, and with custom ammo etc, wind is still a variable, and one you can't buy your way out of.

So there will be some disperison with range, whether the gun has nearly reached zero dispersion or not.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the concept of "zero dispersion" but that sounds like a jazzy marketing term.

Even with super-custom rifles worth 7 times the price of base precision rigs, and with custom ammo etc, wind is still a variable, and one you can't buy your way out of.

So there will be some disperison with range, whether the gun has nearly reached zero dispersion or not. </div></div>

To be a champion you've got to think like one. It's not about the gun, that's the least of it today. It's about perfecting the position, making the five factors of a steady position identical from shot to shot. With practice, identical is possible. And, with the position perfected, even when the ammunition is not match grade, or the wind is not countered perfectly, good scores are still assured since the shooter has, in effect, made the target bigger. This is the winner's secret. No doubt, at the highest levels of competition the ammunition and equipment are important too, but most important is the shooter's discipline to adhere to a practice schedule which supports skill perfection. Since this sort of practice is, for most of us, too painful a pursuit, good shooting is not about discovering what's possible as much as it is about putting money into the gun and enjoying the delusional fantasy of becoming great.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

Beg to differ, but zero dispersion is NOT possible. Now, can you make a perfect pinwheel X at 1000? Certainly, happens all the time. Can you do it 10 times in a row? Can you do it deliberatly with any single shot? The probability of that is rapidly approaching zero, and it has nothing to do with marksmanship. So unless we have a different definition of zero dispersion, I have to dissagree. Zero dispersion to me means that every shot falls precisely on the POA/POI, the group size would be exactly one caliber hole diameter, or a .000 inch group .000 inches from the desired POI.

Elements that are far outside the control of the shooter contribute to the dispersion pattern of shots. At 1000 yards, even 10fps diferance in velocity will alter the POI. Since you cannot know the velocity of any given shot until after it has been fired, that variable alone makes true zero dispersion an impossible quest.

Now I'm all for setting goals. We should work to get our position perfect and make the integrated act of firing a single shot indentical every time we perform it. Seeking perfection in our actions is the goal, though that is unattainable as well.

The intrinsic accuracy of most well built rifles well exceeds most shooters skill level. As Jeff Cooper once pointed out, a marksman is one who can hit that at which he aims, an expert marksman is one who can shoot up to his gun.

If my rifle/ammo combination is able to group 1 MOA from a mechanical rest for 20 shots, I expect to hit within 1/2 MOA of the center of the target everytime I shoot. If I don't, guess what went wrong? One could consider that to be PRACTICAL zero dispersion, even though the group would be 10.47" at 1000. It's not truly zero dispersion, but that's the best result one could hope to get, absent random chance. For that rifle/ammo combination, centering 10.5 inch groups on a 1000 yard target would be the minimum dispersion possible, excepting any anomolies in the ammunition.

I've never known anyone to actually achieve even this, but it's interesting to try.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

Perhaps, because you don't think it's possible it has not been possible. And, certainly, if you don't think it can be done, you'll be right.

Except for the standing position where I will accept a hold which is not right-in-there, all other positions are dressed for me to expect the possibility for zero dispersion. This is a mindset. It assures progress. And, for the most part, I'm expecting zero dispersion using irons and a post front sight. For a shooter using a scope, an attitude that accepts anything less than zero dispersion is simply going to undermine what is (forgive the pun) clearly possible. After all, if the shooter accepts that zero dispersion is not possible then he will do nothing of what it takes to get there. He will not attempt to practice to make the position perfect since he does not believe the work will have a pay off.

I say to any aspiring shooter, shoot for zero dispersion, and analyse rounds which fall short of the desired result. And most of all, don't listen those to who say it can't be done, they are distracting you from good shooting. Listen to winners.

 

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Re: Define accuracy

You're using the concepts of accuracy and precision as if they were interchangeable but they're not the same thing.

When it's properly adjusted, a desk calendar has perfect accuracy but it still isn't very precise. A Swiss chronometer with a sweep second hand has very high precision but it's only as accurate as its most recent adjustment.

Small groups mean high precision. Hitting the intended target means high (or at least sufficient) accuracy.

 

[ricky708]

Re: Define accuracy

If i read this right sterlings zero dispertion means never squeezing one off if your not EXACTLY on target not damn close to the same spot but THE same spot. Right? Zero shooter error
as far as technique.
I guess in my mind you have to combine them all shooter and gun
precision and accuracy which means MOA or less is in reality a pipe dream. I would bet my life savings nobody can go out 30 days in a row and put their first shot on a MOA target much past 100 or 200yards. And if I'm wrong you'll be the proud new owner of a shiny nickle!!!

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred_C_Dobbs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're using the concepts of accuracy and precision as if they were interchangeable but they're not the same thing.

When it's properly adjusted, a desk calendar has perfect accuracy but it still isn't very precise. A Swiss chronometer with a sweep second hand has very high precision but it's only as accurate as its most recent adjustment.

Small groups mean high precision. Hitting the intended target means high (or at least sufficient) accuracy.

</div></div>

I use the phrase "match conditioned" to describe my precision rifle. And my unmodified AR-15 is described as rack grade. I shoot each rifle with the expectation for zero dispersion; but, I understand my expectations are not as reasonable with the rack grade gun as with the match conditioned gun. The bottom-line is I do the best with what I've got. But, no doubt, precision equipment is an aid to good shooting. After all, if the rifle does not always shoot in the direction it's pointed marksmanship is difficult to discern.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rmguns?</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i read this right sterlings zero dispertion means never squeezing one off if your not EXACTLY on target not damn close to the same spot but THE same spot. Right? Zero shooter error
as far as technique.
I guess in my mind you have to combine them all shooter and gun
precision and accuracy which means MOA or less is in reality a pipe dream. I would bet my life savings nobody can go out 30 days in a row and put their first shot on a MOA target much past 100 or 200yards. And if I'm wrong you'll be the proud new owner of a shiny nickle!!!</div></div>

Pipe dreams are what losers experience. They do not have the discipline to win. These folks are not as interested in learning how to shoot as much as they are interested in proving they can shoot. They think they can get the job done by throwing money at it. When they realize they still can't put em in one hole with their "precision rifle" they talk about the experience in terms of what the gun can do rather than what they can do with the gun. It's all very interesting, folks assigning accuracy to the gun when the gun is only as good as the shooter.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

Sigh. There is intrinsic accuracy, which is the physical capability of the rifle/ammo absent shooter induced error. No matter what the shooter does, they cannot shoot better than that capability. I can tell you for a fact that no one has a rifle that is physically capable of placing all shots in one caliber size hole. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mindset, it's simple physics. So, the rifle does indeed have a certain level of accuracy. If the shooter had zero errors, that would be the limit of the combinations ability. If I give Sterling a rifle and ammo that can only produce a 30" group at 1000, no amount of skill or wishful thinking is going to produce 100% X count, much less one hole.

That said, as stated above, most rifles are in fact capable of more accuracy and precision than the shooter can get out of them. If people could shoot as well as the gun, missing would be the exception rather than the rule. The object should be to never miss the intended target. If the target is the X ring of a bullseye target, then you are supposed to hit it with every shot.

Having tested rifles and ammo from a machine rest, my goal is to place shots within 1/2 MOA of the desired POI. Anything less means I have failed in some way, large or small. It's simply silly to ask for anything more.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

You appear to be satisfied with less than what I believe is possible. For me, zero dispersion is the goal, even using sling and irons. I often realize my goal, shooting sequential bullets through holes left by preceding ones. I can do this because I have developed my picture and motor memory skills to a level beyond what most shooters can comprehend. All this amounts to is an attitude about perfection and a proper practice/analysis schedule which shows progress. If I had your attitude about it, I doubt I would have any interest in pursuing LR with a Service Rifle. I also doubt, if I accepted your notions of what's possible that I would have come to know all that I know about what's important to good shooting. At any rate, what's important to me is not what is important to you. I understand that the mental and physical pain of practicing to perfection is not for everybody. And, for most, there's not much point to it unless they want to be the best at something, and are willing to do the work being the best requires without guarantee of success.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

If you really believe that your shooting one bullet through the hole left by another is a direct result of your "skills... beyond what most shooters can comprehend", you sir, need some professional help. Oh, and by the way, I've got a great investment property for you, a classic bridge in Brooklyn, NY...

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you really believe that your shooting one bullet through the hole left by another is a direct result of your "skills... beyond what most shooters can comprehend", you sir, need some professional help. Oh, and by the way, I've got a great investment property for you, a classic bridge in Brooklyn, NY...</div></div>

Good shooting is always a "direct" result of knowledge and skill. It's an understanding about where the barrel is pointed. You can not argue those facts so you need to personally attack me. You prove my point about most shooters not comprehending, it's clear you don't. Perhaps if you get on track you might win something.

 

[Graham]

Re: Define accuracy

The objective of tactical shooting is not to get the best possible performance from a system, but to be able to make the system perform well on demand.

When all best and worst groups average 1/4 MOA, or you shoot five consecutive five shot groups at 2" at 800 yards, then I'll concede you may have a 1/4 MOA rifle. Problem is, in order to to do that, the best the rifle can do must be 1/8 MOA and the best its ammo can do must also be 1/8 MOA. When this happens the result on target will be groupings right around 1/4 MOA (assuming, of course, that you can find ammo that precise and that you can hold equally well).

At close range good groups are easy to make. If you like bugholes, shoot at 100 yards from the bench using flat-based bullets. That should put you well under 1/4 MOA with a good rifle. Whether one measures the result from center to center or from the outside edges doesn't really matter either (except mathematically, if, for example, you want to derive the theoretical size of a proportionally larger group from a smaller one). Whether we shoot a few cold bore shots over a few days, or a bunch of rapid-fire shots on a stage, we're always shooting a group anyway - even if we don't 'shoot groups'.

For our purpose an accurate rifle is one that puts a bullet hole as close as possible to the position of the sights (or the reticle) everytime. If the shot ends up at four o'clock, and you called it low and right, then you've got an accurate rifle. An accurate rifle is important because the more precise its ability to place the shots the more influence the shooter's correct hold will have on bullet placement. And that's what we strive for. Consistency may or may not be a separate issue...

The bottom line is that if the holes appear on paper where the sights were when you pulled the trigger, that tells us what we need to know. What you call it or how you measure it is a distant second.

And the rest is marketing....

_________________________

 

[Early Cuyler]

Re: Define accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#Accuracy_versus_precision:_the_target_analogy

I think that sums it up best for you

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Define accuracy

You guys should ask Sterling to post a group to demonstrate his "zero dispersion" philosophy.

I think you will find his definition is slightly different than what people like Cory are saying. One of the first F Class matches I shot at Raton was the Spirit of America, and this was before the Target Change. The winners won by "X" count over 5 days of shooting. Not dropping a single point with their belly bench rest guns. That is what he is saying, not the same as putting the bullet through the same hole every shot. Different context ...

I think we strive all for zero dispersion, however the reality is some what different than what our mind's eye sees.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys should ask Sterling to post a group to demonstrate his "zero dispersion" philosophy.

I think you will find his definition is slightly different than what people like Cory are saying. One of the first F Class matches I shot at Raton was the Spirit of America, and this was before the Target Change. The winners won by "X" count over 5 days of shooting. Not dropping a single point with their belly bench rest guns. That is what he is saying, not the same as putting the bullet through the same hole every shot. Different context ...

I think we strive all for zero dispersion, however the reality is some what different than what our mind's eye sees.

</div></div>

Yes, you hit it square on the head. The goal is zero dispersion, the reality is holes somewhat bigger than the diameter of preceeding bullets.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

At which point I refer back to my post at the top of page two, where I describe what could be called PRACTICAL zero dispersion.

It's not a skill if you can't repeat it. Since no one on this planet can deliberatly fire one bullet through the preceeding bullet hole at even 600 yards, repeatedly, on demand, that is not a skill. It happens, and of course the shooter does have a little to do with that, but it's happenstance, not skill. Skill only kept the cone of fire where it was possible that the other bullet MIGHT land in the same place, the fact that it did is just a matter of statistical probability.

If one can achieve a perfect score in F-class over multiple days of shooting, THAT is certainly skill. They got PRACTICAL zero dispersion, they shot up to their gun, which is no mean feat.

If you want to call a shot in the X ring every time zero dispersion, fine. Now we have a whole different thing. Given that the 1000 yard X ring is 10", it's certainly physically possible. I don't know that it's ever been done, I don't follow high power, but it's within the capability of available rifles and ammo, where one caliber size hole is NOT.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Define accuracy

Cory

I believe F Class changed the size of the target due to the fact that too many people were cleaning the course and the winners were being chosen by "X" Count.

I don't know the old dimensions versus the new, but I believe they cut the X ring in half.

Again, it's clear that Sterling's competition context is a far cry from the purity of the question. especially if you consider that "zero dispersion" in a competition setting can equal more than 1 MOA. Where here when most discuss this they are talking sub-1/4MOA or even better. It should be an equal playing field for the discussion and not a sliding scale.

If a just okay F Class shooter puts all his rounds in the 10 ring or better on a Service Rifle target is that the same as saying zero dispersion, well no. The 10 Ring on a Service rifle target is 20" so that is 2 MOA. Just because you clean the target is not a good definition of zero dispersion. At least not in a standard competition format because clearly equipment has eclipsed what was considered "sporty".

 

[Zilla]

Re: Define accuracy

The current F-Class 1000 yard x-ring is 5", 10-ring is 10". The current national record is 200-15x for a 20 shot match. 150-12x for a 15 shot match.

I shot a 600 yard match in Utah last year and they didn't have a F-Class target for me the first day so I shot on a standard MR-1. 6" x-ring, 12" 10-ring. I shot a 200-20x. On a F-Class target, it would have been a 200-?x.

When the target was reduced a few years ago, the scores went down but they are coming back up. It was a year or two before anyone cleaned the new target but cleans are becoming more common now. By clean, I mean a perfect score, not perfect x count.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

LL, that F class shooter would appear to meet the definition of PRACTICAL zero dispersion, but the target size is an issue for that definition. One person might consider the shooting to be just average, but if it's a perfect score, how much better does it get? 200-20x, they might just as well be all in one hole, since the score won't be any different.

That was my original point, now seemingly lost. Dispersion/precision is simply the measure of group size, the mean radius of a statisticlly signifigant number of shots. Zero dispersion is not physically possible with current technology.

Accuracy is the mean distance from the desired POI. The F-class shooter was accurate, but not as precise as physically possible.

If we could be as precise as the gun/ammo, and could read conditions perfectly, we'd never miss. Then of course it would be boring and we'd quit

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Define accuracy

Cory I am agreeing with you, just pointed out the difference in Sterling's take on the subject.

No argument from me ...

 

[The Animal]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think we strive all for zero dispersion, however the reality is some what different than what our mind's eye sees. </div></div>

+1

The mental aspect of shooting is 90% of the game.

 

[ricky708]

Re: Define accuracy

well I am obviously not at the same level most of you are.
Or I never have decent shooting conditions, we have shot on days
where 600yards was 10-12 MOA and missing a wind change of 3mph put you 12-20" off target, I have a real hard time noticing a wind change from 34-37mph or maybe its the fact that unless the gun is bolted down its moving. But this is wyoming and if you only shoot on decent days a box of bullets will last you years!
Not trying to call BS on anyone because I'm sure there are alot of people who read conditions far better than me, if your ever around Gillette get ahold of me and I'll give you a shot at the nickle.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Re: Define accuracy

Accurate means hitting a predetermined target.

You may put all your rounds in one hole, but if it's not hitting the bull, then your are not "accurate".

You may be precise and repeatable, but you are not accurate.

 

[RebelYell]

Re: Define accuracy or how accurate?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rmguns?</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not sure how to word this? if your gun puts every shot thru the same hole (hypothetically) but you miss poa by 1" do you call that MOA @ 100yds? I know, I know its a one holer with a moa shooter. I have guns that will shoot one ragged hole at 100yds but past that wind,etc. makes putting a bullet to poa tough. I have seen lots of steel with nice groups off to one side,high or low. A shilloutte at 500yds with a 2.5" group on the right shoulder, 1/2 moa or 1.5moa because you were 7.5" from poa? How do you call it? Depending on how you look at it there's either ALOT of 1/2 moa guns or the same amount of
2-3 moa guns? </div></div>

To get back to the main question at hand...supposing you were in a controlled environment and your rifle was in a vise so as to make make the scope stay on the same sight picture, and you fired off five rounds and they hit 5" low and 10" to the right but made a .5" hole...you would have a 1/2 moa weapon.This is at 100 yds .

If you want the impact to be on the bullesys than just tune the damn scope to it. Now if you pick the same weapon up and your shot group makes a 3" shot group at the same distance that doesn't change what your weapon can do...it just proves you can't freakin shoot. Has nothing to do with what your weapon can do.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy or how accurate?

LL, I know you agree, I'm just trying to figure out if SS really thinks that his skill can achieve actual zero dispersion, which seems to be what he implys when he says he's trying to shoot through the same hole as the last shot, and apparently he thinks that it can be done.

 

[89t295k]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Accurate means hitting a predetermined target.

You may put all your rounds in one hole, but if it's not hitting the bull, then your are not "accurate".

You may be precise and repeatable, but you are not accurate. </div></div>

+1, this is what my 4th grade math teacher told us lol

MOA is a measure of your precision, how close you get to your intended target is Accuracy.

The true goal would be both.

 

[Jig Stick]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sigh. There is intrinsic accuracy, which is the physical capability of the rifle/ammo absent shooter induced error. No matter what the shooter does, they cannot shoot better than that capability. <span style="color: #FF0000">I can tell you for a fact that no one has a rifle that is physically capable of placing all shots in one caliber size hole</span>. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mindset, it's simple physics. So, the rifle does indeed have a certain level of accuracy. If the shooter had zero errors, that would be the limit of the combinations ability. If I give Sterling a rifle and ammo that can only produce a 30" group at 1000, no amount of skill or wishful thinking is going to produce 100% X count, much less one hole.

That said, as stated above, most rifles are in fact capable of more accuracy and precision than the shooter can get out of them. If people could shoot as well as the gun, missing would be the exception rather than the rule. The object should be to never miss the intended target. If the target is the X ring of a bullseye target, then you are supposed to hit it with every shot.

Having tested rifles and ammo from a machine rest, my goal is to place shots within 1/2 MOA of the desired POI. Anything less means I have failed in some way, large or small. It's simply silly to ask for anything more. </div></div>

I beg to differ. A few of my buddies can shoot one hole groups with their benchrest 6ppc's. And my one buddies rail gun puts them all through the same hole. But I do like your description of accuracy vs precision. I couldnt of explained it any better.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Animal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think we strive all for zero dispersion, however the reality is some what different than what our mind's eye sees. </div></div>

+1

The mental aspect of shooting is 90% of the game.</div></div>

Maybe more than 90%. When I first got into HP and LR I perceived the scoring rings to be quite generous. My obsession about shooting for small groups was abandoned. Now, I've come full circle. I understand today the impact perfecting my position can make at hitting where aimed; and, I know now that proper adjustment of NPA is not enough to get the best results. I've learned that to get good hits with the service rifle at LR, basic marksmanship in the prone sling supported position at short range must be perfected. It must be perfected to preserve the perspective of aim at distance. In my attempt to hit where aimed on the MR-31 target, I focus on developing consistency in my position, that's to say, the shot to shot relationship between myself, the gun, and the ground. Becoming more consistent in this arena, bullet dispersion from point of aim and point of impact has decreased. And, holding like this in match conditions at LR has effectively made the scoring rings bigger, as being able to hold to the diameter of the target, makes not countering for wind correctly have less consequence, or a result that causes me to lose points. In practice this has helped me to shoot to an average of 93% in LR with my AR based Service Rifle shooting an 80 grain Berger VLD.

The point of all of this is that I now refine my position to what I think is identical from shot to shot. I do this to indeed make zero dispersion (exactly hitting where aimed) more likely. I use the term zero dispersion to describe exactly hitting where aimed since that is my goal; and because, without emphasis, hitting where aimed could be construed to mean just hitting a hit or miss type target.

I think most here have an understanding about zero dispersion, which means there is no value in measurement from point of aim and bullet impact. For those here who say this is not possible they reveal only that they cannot do it and apparently live in a very small world, since zero dispersion is indeed possible, at least at short range. And, with practice at short range, striving for zero dispersion, whether realized or not, the shooter will certainly realize better results at distances where zero dispersion may in fact not be possible due due to the effects of velocity fluctuation, wind and weather effects, or the mechanical limitations of the bullet itself. Of course, since the shooter may not be able to do anything about those things, perfecting the position is the one sure way to a better result.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

OK, now we are down to thinking that zero dispersion is possible at close range, and what you really mean is zero dispersion in your point of aim/position. The second part is perfectly reasonable.

Holding perfectly is possible and should be the goal with every shot, I will agree. It's probably pretty rare, and unprovable, but it's what I want for sure. If I aim perfectly and break the shot without disturbing that POI until recoil is over, I've done all that I can do, it's now down to the mechanical ability of the gun/ammo and my interpretation of the conditions. It's possible, just really, really hard.

Jig and SS, a quick look at the world records for short range benchrest shows no .000 groups, even for 5 shots at 100. One hole is common, but even with these machines, .000 would simply be a statistical anomaly. It's bound to happen at some point, given enough rounds downrange. It's not what you can do once, it's what can be done on demand, repeatedly. We can definately get all the bullet holes to touch, at least at 100 to maybe even 200 yards, but we will not be getting .000 repeatedly anytime soon.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Define accuracy

What I'm shooting for is zero dispersion. Making the position perfect makes what I'm shooting for possible. Now, I've always understood your posts on this matter regarding the measurement of zero dispersion, I also know that shooting successive bullets through the same hole is indeed possible. Whether you end up with .000 is not the point. The point is: when you can produce groups barely bigger than the diameter of the hole left from the first shot you are well poised to hit any target at any distance the bullet can get to nose-on. One thing for sure, those here who are satisfied with anything less than shooting to zero dispersion will never realize what is possible. Sometimes folks show me their groups they've just shot at my area's public range. These folks appear to be quite satisfied with 1/2 MOA at 100. I need to fake it when I say to them "that's pretty good". With their laser like round loaded to perfection and 20 lb rifle fitted with some big ass scope and shooting from the bench they should be concerned that their 1/2 MOA group indicates they still have something to learn about building a steady position. At any rate, Cory, I think you're a neat guy, never rude, but sometimes a little stubborn, like me. I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas, as well as your perspective on it all.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Define accuracy

For those who don't believe "zero dispersion" is possible out side of bench rest guns...........

You need to take in an ISU English Match.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Define accuracy

Well, we are pretty much on the same page now, so I understand your position. However, it's very difficult to discern where the error lies when simply shown a 1/2 MOA group. It's entirely possible that every shot was fired with absolute perfection (though the chances of that approach zero). Without some kind of prior mechanical rest testing, that may well be the limits of the rifle/ammo, in which case the shooter has done all that they can do.

I'w got a factory Savage rifle used for classes and demos. With factory match loads, from a rest, it shoots about 1 MOA. If a student gets a 1 MOA group from prone supported, they are in pretty good shape, even though all the holes don't touch. When it's 1.5 - 2 inches, they have some work to do

That's why I say one should aspire to shoot up to the gun. These days, it's pretty easy to buy a rifle that shoots 1 MOA or less. 1/2 MOA is a bit less common, but quite doable.

I think if I was shooting 1/2 MOA groups from slung prone every time, I'd be pretty happy. At that point, even if I was in fact somewhat less that perfect, how would I know?

The only way to test for a perfect shooter would be to have a perfect rifle/ammo system. One could build a tightly collimated laser, along with a target with say .02" resolution of the beam center. That would be a real interesting training device. It would take the hardware out of the equation and purely test the shooters ability to align the sights and press the trigger.

I don't know if such resolution is possible at 100 yards, but it would be very interesting.

 

[ricky708]

Re: Define accuracy

So I know group shooting is considered bad for some reason, but it's really the only way to measure the repeatability of a system.
I know, dot drills, but its the same thing only you use a different poa each time. They both test shooter error and equipment. I know that if 10 rds are in the same hole 1" from poa you need to correct.
But the benchrest guy is happy with it.
The service rifle guy has a perfect score at 2MOA
The F-class guy has to shoot twice that good
A LE/military sniper anything from minute of bad guy to minute of apricot depending on situation.
So that puts us anywhere from .001"- 2or3MOA depending on game.
I guess hitting your target probably sums it up best.

 

[89t295k]

Re: Define accuracy

Good news is you can never be off target by more than 10,800 MOA.....(180deg).

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Re: Define accuracy or how accurate?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're using the concepts of accuracy and precision as if they were interchangeable but they're not the same thing.</div></div>

+1

Example of accuracy can be found in silhouette shooting. If your target size is the equivalent of a 1 or 2 MOA firing solution then you only have to shoot within 1 or 2 MOA to score. Example in precision shooting can be found in bulls-eye target shooting. The tightest group closest to the bulls-eye is a winning score or one shot per multiple targets ends up with highest score based on the bulls-eye of the target. Basically, these are the definitions and difference between accuracy and precision shooting. The former is also prevalent in military shooting where there is usually no need or time for the latter. Low enforcement sharpshooting is a mixture of accuracy or precision depending on the situation. Hunting is an accuracy sport. So, which is the most glamorous? It depends on what you are shooting and why you are shooting at it.

Shotguns are a different story. They are all based on accuracy be it tactical, hunting, trap, or skeet.

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Define accuracy or how accurate?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rmguns?</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have seen lots of steel with nice groups off to one side,high or low. A shilloutte at 500yds with a 2.5" group on the right shoulder, 1/2 moa or 1.5moa because you were 7.5" from poa? How do you call it? </div></div>

One thing I see no mention of here is intermittent winds. There may be a name for this technique but I call it splitting the wind. I often shoot in internittent winds where if you try to dial them out, you may put some of your rounds dead center but you're going to miss a large percentage of them if you don't time the winds accurately, which can be impossible at times unless you're the 1 in 1000 that can actually "<span style="font-style: italic">see the matrix</span>".

By splitting the wind I can put 10 rounds on the plate (albiet scattered) verses say 5 rounds dead center, and it doesn't take a math major to understand that ten 7's is better than five 10's. Then add a tree lined shooting lane into the mix where you're also dealing with downdrafts as the wind drops off the treetops and the benefits of this becomes clear.

Its much like applying the concept of "complimentary range" to the wind. And don't take my word for it though...break out a mildot master and look how big a full sized IPSC is at say 850. It's not very wide...maybe 0.6 mils. If you dial out a 0.5 mil wind and it changes you're often screwed by something as small as your pulse.

I see guys all the time at the range that chase the wind and end up missing 50% or more of their shots due to this effect, all in the name of placing a round or group dead center.

A hit doesn't always have to be pretty.