That, and I notice a pattern of people believing they're better shooters than they actually are.
- Thread starter MR&R
- Start date
An easy explanation: there's a human pulling the trigger.
If you could lock the gun in a rest and pull the trigger electronically, I'm sure you'd find the cone of fire is consistent, exactly as it should be.
Bullets yawing, "going to sleep", and all that other BS comes from the same fairy tales as "nodes" (Santa isn't real either, sorry).
A 1/2-moa group at 1000 is pretty normal for me and I'm not that amazing, "one hole" at 150 yards can mean different things to different people (like fishing, one man's "whopper" is another man's guppy lol) but let's assume you mean 1/4-moa, 4-5" at 400 is hovering around 1-moa...
There are myriad reasons why the group sizes are different at different distances... but the gun/load doing it by itself is the last thing I'd consider (even though most times that seems to be the first thing guys scrutinize around here lol).
If you could lock the gun in a rest and pull the trigger electronically, I'm sure you'd find the cone of fire is consistent, exactly as it should be.
Bullets yawing, "going to sleep", and all that other BS comes from the same fairy tales as "nodes" (Santa isn't real either, sorry).
A 1/2-moa group at 1000 is pretty normal for me and I'm not that amazing, "one hole" at 150 yards can mean different things to different people (like fishing, one man's "whopper" is another man's guppy lol) but let's assume you mean 1/4-moa, 4-5" at 400 is hovering around 1-moa...
There are myriad reasons why the group sizes are different at different distances... but the gun/load doing it by itself is the last thing I'd consider (even though most times that seems to be the first thing guys scrutinize around here lol).
Post the groups.
I only shot on very low wind days.
1/2 moa groups at 1k aren't all that uncommon if we are talking about just holding the same POA for a string. And even more so if we are only measuring vertical because we are just holding the same POA regardless of wind.
Where it gets very, very hard is when you have an actual 10 and X ring where you need to maintain a sub MOA group as well as maintain those groups inside of a specified area.
I.E. 1/2 moa of precision isn't crazy. 1/2 moa of accuracy is pretty tough.
Where it gets very, very hard is when you have an actual 10 and X ring where you need to maintain a sub MOA group as well as maintain those groups inside of a specified area.
I.E. 1/2 moa of precision isn't crazy. 1/2 moa of accuracy is pretty tough.
Thank you for chiming in! After all the post about how improbable it is to have a 1/2 MOA group at 1000yrds, I was beginning to think I was an anomaly and freak of nature.
My groups were not at POA. I was only looking for consistency.
Feel free to post any data you want. We'll extrapolate it to more usable data using things like confidence intervals and such. There are definitely ways to extrapolate smaller same sizes (pretty much everything we do as shooters is small sizing) to more workable and realistic data.
What that usually does is give you a "range" of where we expect values to be long term. And when our results are inside of those ranges, we know we aren't seeing anything extraordinary.
I.E. we will very likely show that your shot dispersion is inside of what's expected and it's more than likely some random dispersion going on. Humans are extremely terrible at realizing how much random happens in life.
What is your target at each distance?
I find my self struggling more to shoot accurate at closer ranges. Be it a very small target like a dot at 100 yards or orange circle at 300
I find even with everything setup properly I strain myself trying to keep everything perfect. Especially when I can see bullet holes. Putting 4 shots in a tiny cluster then paying so much attention to the 5th shot that I pull it anyways
More mind over matter. I typically group at 300 on black paper with a orange dot just so I can’t see what my group is looking like
At 1000 I can’t see the hits on paper. So I just remain consistent each shot but no shot seems more important than the next as I can’t see my instant feedback
1/2 moa at 1k consistently is still very impressive. Your reloading is obviously spot on between that and your SD numbers
I find my self struggling more to shoot accurate at closer ranges. Be it a very small target like a dot at 100 yards or orange circle at 300
I find even with everything setup properly I strain myself trying to keep everything perfect. Especially when I can see bullet holes. Putting 4 shots in a tiny cluster then paying so much attention to the 5th shot that I pull it anyways
More mind over matter. I typically group at 300 on black paper with a orange dot just so I can’t see what my group is looking like
At 1000 I can’t see the hits on paper. So I just remain consistent each shot but no shot seems more important than the next as I can’t see my instant feedback
1/2 moa at 1k consistently is still very impressive. Your reloading is obviously spot on between that and your SD numbers
Vertical is bad. During load development, vertical dispersion means the load is out of tune with the barrel. But, in your case, it's a good load at 100 and 1000 yards. Is there a terrain and/or foliage major difference at 400 yards versus 100 and 1000 yards?
I use a target camera with a 2 mile range to see every shot
No difference. I'm shooting across a harvested cotton field
Are you the only one who has been shooting the rifle or has this situation happening with other shooters behind the rifle?
I ocassionally see this in my own shooting but it has always been traced back to the shooter, at least for me...for example, my mean error radius at 100m seems to equal to that at 300m in some instances but I tend to impart sympathetic vertical movement in my rear support from time to time at 100m more so than I do at 300m+ (odd, and not sure why probably obsessing over stupid shit, overthinking the shot - like getting ball-bound when playing golf)...
When shooting for consistency, you always move your reticle over. If you keep hitting the same POA, you no longer have a well defined POA. A group is a group if it an intentional pattern.
If you're going to go down this rabbit hole, look in the mirror before doing anything else. As shooters I feel like we constantly have to resist blaming our results on hardware before we have 100% put in the work to know it's not "software related" (us).
We all have shortcomings or things we're better at than others... for me, I seem to always be able to shoot great at 750 yards, and usually further too, I'm usually as good or better than most at 1000 and out to as far as 1250 yards (that's as far as my club goes, and I don't practice regularly further than that). But, sometimes I really suck at 400-600 yards where time-of-flight is less and impacts/splash happen faster... throughout the year I fight with this and have to constantly put in the work to stay on top of it. Since most PRS targets are in this range, I can look like a pro on one stage and suck ass on the next.
I know it's not the gun, because my 100yrd groups generally hover between .3-.5" (depending on what I had for breakfast as far as I can tell), and in calm conditions, I can put 5 out of 5 on an IPSC torso at 1250.
I can try to make things as easy as I can for myself (by shooting a 21lb 6mm with an 8oz trigger), but point is, this shit is still hard.
Once you're positive it's not "you", then you can start working through the list: action screws? parallax? scope f'ed up? reloading scale off? barrel cooked? wonky batch of bullets? etc, etc, etc...
We all have shortcomings or things we're better at than others... for me, I seem to always be able to shoot great at 750 yards, and usually further too, I'm usually as good or better than most at 1000 and out to as far as 1250 yards (that's as far as my club goes, and I don't practice regularly further than that). But, sometimes I really suck at 400-600 yards where time-of-flight is less and impacts/splash happen faster... throughout the year I fight with this and have to constantly put in the work to stay on top of it. Since most PRS targets are in this range, I can look like a pro on one stage and suck ass on the next.
I know it's not the gun, because my 100yrd groups generally hover between .3-.5" (depending on what I had for breakfast as far as I can tell), and in calm conditions, I can put 5 out of 5 on an IPSC torso at 1250.
I can try to make things as easy as I can for myself (by shooting a 21lb 6mm with an 8oz trigger), but point is, this shit is still hard.
Once you're positive it's not "you", then you can start working through the list: action screws? parallax? scope f'ed up? reloading scale off? barrel cooked? wonky batch of bullets? etc, etc, etc...
I have a buddy that shoots with me. Same results with same gun. He was going post on this thread until he read all the BS post and people trying to pick apart everything I said instead of listening to the issue.
@MR&R,
You don't have nearly enough data make a statement that the the group size is going from large to small with increasing distance. You do have enough information to make the statement that you see this happening based on anecdotal evidence. If you study enough about external ballistics you will find that the proposition you propose isn't valid. This is not to say your groups didn't do what you say they did.
As to data if you shot all these groups as four shot groups then you threw out half of your data by looking at only the two extreme shots in each group. When you are shooting at 400yds and 1000yds you are dealing with numerous external factors that affect the flight of the bullet that create noise (errors) in the intended point of impact. In a case like this trying to prove the precision of the round on target it makes sense to utilize all shots and to determine the mean radius of the group. In comparing one group to another this method allows you to determine a standard deviation of each group and this allows for use of statistical tool to determine if the differs are statistically significant. To be useful you would need to shoot 20 shots eat each distance to have reasonable confidence in the results.
It is much more likely that the results are, in fact shooter induced. If you are shooting a 1000 yd target with a 1.2" X ring at 400yds that is equivalent to a 3" X ring. Vastly different sight picture. This difference in sight picture MAY lead to the mind viewing the target differently and causing changes in how the body responds to attempts to duplicate what is needed to break the shot. Ideally you would like to have ~.5" X ring at 400 yds. In this case taking a 40% Reduction of the target center would help eliminate sight picture effects.
You might find Hornady Podcast #50 of interest.
You don't have nearly enough data make a statement that the the group size is going from large to small with increasing distance. You do have enough information to make the statement that you see this happening based on anecdotal evidence. If you study enough about external ballistics you will find that the proposition you propose isn't valid. This is not to say your groups didn't do what you say they did.
As to data if you shot all these groups as four shot groups then you threw out half of your data by looking at only the two extreme shots in each group. When you are shooting at 400yds and 1000yds you are dealing with numerous external factors that affect the flight of the bullet that create noise (errors) in the intended point of impact. In a case like this trying to prove the precision of the round on target it makes sense to utilize all shots and to determine the mean radius of the group. In comparing one group to another this method allows you to determine a standard deviation of each group and this allows for use of statistical tool to determine if the differs are statistically significant. To be useful you would need to shoot 20 shots eat each distance to have reasonable confidence in the results.
It is much more likely that the results are, in fact shooter induced. If you are shooting a 1000 yd target with a 1.2" X ring at 400yds that is equivalent to a 3" X ring. Vastly different sight picture. This difference in sight picture MAY lead to the mind viewing the target differently and causing changes in how the body responds to attempts to duplicate what is needed to break the shot. Ideally you would like to have ~.5" X ring at 400 yds. In this case taking a 40% Reduction of the target center would help eliminate sight picture effects.
You might find Hornady Podcast #50 of interest.
I have that (a) 2 mile target camera system I haven't used yet. So I would love to see some pics for this purpose and for the group diagnostics.
I've watched that several times and I agree with their logic. I think this weekend I will do a 20 shot group at 400, 600, and 1000 to see the results.
I can tell you, it isn't bullet proof. I dont recommend putting it out until your on paper. I hit my 3 tumes. All 3 were after changing scopes or rifles. Luckily I didn't hit vital parts.
HAHAHAHA, I think they meant their warranty was bullet proof, not the plastic unit themselves!
Try to get video if you can. I will try to get mine out here soon too.
Agree with those that suggest shooting a vid though it would still be a sample of one (or however many groups are shot) but would still be interesting to see the results...Also consider developing a different load using a different bullet to see if there's the same grouping pattern at those different distances or not.
Shoot 100 at each distance, over your chronograph, so we can prove out this SD of 2.
I used the same bullet, different seating and charge and got a more consistent pattern over the various distances. I will soon convert my bullet from Berger 153 to Berger 140 and get all new load data
Roger this. That black paper orange dot is a
Last edited:
Applied Ballistics has a target shot simulator that shows what the guys at Hornady was talking about.
You're not fro Arkansas.
Touching base with hornyday ! I’d sooner vote for fJB
Not necessarily. An absolutely flat waterline load at 1000 may demonstrate exaggerated wind sensitivity wheras optimal may be a group twice as high as it is wide.
What do you mean?
We will have to agree to disagree.
Where did you come up with this ?
I cant really find it in writing anymore but its the shoot through challenge he has posted on several sites in the past. Could have sworn they used to have an article on it too but I cant find it. https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/applied-ballistics-shoot-thru-target-challenge.3861880/
Being the high priestess of bullets changing direction, you should do it too.
I saw it , it was with marginally stable bullets intentionally . So sure they will spread out because they are unstable to begin with . Everybody thinks it proved positive compensation did not exist . I have to wander what he was trying to prove with that test .
So stable bullets start tight, spread out, then tighten up again?
your still a troll who has not a clue lol.
No , a slow bullet hits high and spreads out from there ?
Shoot the challenge and show us.
You’re*
Already have lol, just not to you .
And did Bryan pay you, or did you go home with your tail between your legs?
Bryan refused to see it . Others have seen it and done it . I could have called him out at a match but the would be rude to show it in front of all of the shooters . Just trying to defend what I can do . So show me where this 10,000 bounty was stated .
Similar threads
