# Firearms and Shooting > Shooting >  Acceptable group size at long range ?

## Kiwi Greg

I have been wondering recently what Shooters think is an acceptable average 3 shot group size at long range in good conditions ?
I'm talking about normalish LR rigs lying in a paddock etc with a bipod & rear bag, not 60lb railgun type rigs.
For instance I have no idea what size the F class boys shoot as an average for various classes. 
It goes without saying that obviously less is more in this case.
I don't want this to turn into your average internet BS pissing competition, with heaps of input from keyboard shooters  :Yuush: 

I'm talking about 4-500 out to as far as you can shoot, on a reasonably regular basis.

Is it 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 moa ? or bigger ?

I'm talking about shooting targets, steel, paper, rocks etc.

And be honest, I know the records are under 2" at 1000 for various calibres.......

----------


## Wildman

To what end? What question is on your mind?

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> To what end? What question is on your mind?


Just wondering where I should be heading with group sizes.

Is it feasible to be trying/striving the shoot 0.25  or what ever, moa groups or is anything under 1moa acceptable ? 

Is 0.25 or what ever, moa unrealistic/impossible. 

If it isn't that possible whats the point trying to achieve it unless you like pulling all your hair out, for me that wouldn't take long  :Wink: 

Just trying to get an idea what other shooters think....

----------


## R93

I reckon you should strive to match the groups that you shoot at your zero range, at all ranges. Therory of the group applys of course. I have shot a few groups at 700 and beyond that puts a smile on my face but so far havent managed it everytime. Usually my fault as well. Wrong Data inputs or forget to input/note a change the conditions dictate.
I dont really worry as long as I try to do my bit and make the first one fall in my expected MPI.
It was better when the Queen paid for me to muck around with heaps of ammo.

----------


## gimp

I'm more worried about getting the first shot where I want it than groups

----------


## Wildman

I'm no long ranger by any means but maybe work backwards. What size target do you want to hit at what range? Mine would be hunting related. i.e. I would want to be able to hit deer at 500m consistently.

----------


## baldbob

> I'm more worried about getting the first shot where I want it than groups


best thing ever to come off the end of gimps fingers....

What sort of question is this greg? How do, can, will we accomadate the variables?

I can and do regularly under 2" at 650m as you well know..

And 2" groups at much further are and can often be pulled (as we well know)

But the age old accuracy classification becomes much less desirable LR... for example MOA at 800m is pretty terrible (Moa at 100m is terrible)...

0.25 MOA is starting to get pedantic and variably unrealistic SO I put in a top vote on Half 0.5MOA.. and we would have to be happy...

----------


## crnkin

Who cares when adam only shoots steel past 500 anyway.......

And within that its only goats these days?  :Have A Nice Day:   :Have A Nice Day:   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## The Claw

I think the answer is a combination of what gimp and wildman have said. An acceptable group size is consistantly smaller than the target you intend to hit. This will mean 1st round hits are a reality, not a possibility. If your rifle "is capable" of shooting further than you can group consistantly, then it means either (a) your current load is not accurate enough, or (b) you need more practice, and/or (c) you aren't capable of shooting further. Go back to (b) then...

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> 0.25 MOA is starting to get pedantic and variably unrealistic SO I put in a top vote on Half 0.5MOA.. and we would have to be happy...


Thats the sort of answer I was looking for  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Terminator

My vote to would go with .5 MOA and anything smaller is a bonus :Thumbsup:

----------


## Tui4Me

You guys crack me up, what happened to all the sharp shooters out there with their 100 yard targets with 25 rounds through them?

Think 0.25 MOA at 400+ is not realistic? You would have been better off using your 25 rounds for some load development at 500 yards rather than waste them at 100 yards. Seating depth and .5 powder +- is a good one that shows up well at 500.

Forum member Mossies new Sendero is a good example of this, 3 shots into a 4" red dot at 500yards. It shot 1.25" And the wind was not the best for shooting. Next day he shot a deer at 550 I think it was. Perfect elevation.

Does he need to waste 25 rounds to claim this accuracy? No Way! It's 500 yards, they are going to warm up and climb up the target!

I think the better way would be to go to the range and spend short trips shooting x2 or x3 shots at the same target, at the same range but in different conditions. After a few trips you will soon find out what you and your rifle can do.

As Gimp said 1st shots are the important thing. But you also want to make sure every time you do your 1st few shots they are nice and close together

 KiwiGreg, im sure many of your rifles are more than capable of 0.25 at range, after all it was your gun and your load that Mossie was using to do the job!

----------


## veitnamcam

Put it this way Greg, Iv had two loads that would consistently shoot under half on a bad day. I dont use either.
The loads i use run half to 3/4 and the other 3/4 to one.
I use these because the pills suit the application and the others didn't.
As you know I'm not really a long range shooter but even with this shot gun patterning could still hit B/Bs 1140 plate once I had wind-age sorted using hold over cos Id run out of up. Yep its a BIG plate. Would I try a shot on an animal at that not bloody likely
I'm not really a long ranger as you know but the way I look at it is this.

Animals= 6" inch group is max for me
Rifles max range is the point at which velocity drops below reliable expansion regardless of energy (1000 foot pounds who came up with that?)
So I have a theoretical max range of around 600y with the lowly .308 on a animal so i only need MOA any better is a bonus.
Would I try it on an animal? Yep but only in perfect conditions nowhere near enough experience picking the wind.
Steel how big is the plate, how far do you want to shoot? *Does it even matter if your having fun and learning a bit?
* :Thumbsup:

----------


## Terminator

> You guys crack me up, what happened to all the sharp shooters out there with their 100 yard targets with 25 rounds through them?
> 
> Think 0.25 MOA at 400+ is not realistic? You would have been better off using your 25 rounds for some load development at 500 yards rather than waste them at 100 yards. Seating depth and .5 powder +- is a good one that shows up well at 500.
> 
> Forum member Mossies new Sendero is a good example of this, 3 shots into a 4" red dot at 500yards. It shot 1.25" And the wind was not the best for shooting. Next day he shot a deer at 550 I think it was. Perfect elevation.
> 
> Does he need to waste 25 rounds to claim this accuracy? No Way! It's 500 yards, they are going to warm up and climb up the target!
> 
> I think the better way would be to go to the range and spend short trips shooting x2 or x3 shots at the same target, at the same range but in different conditions. After a few trips you will soon find out what you and your rifle can do.
> ...




Hand on heart dose your Rem 7mm mag average with *more than one group* .25MOA or is it more like .60 MOA  :Wink:

----------


## Tui4Me

Your a hard man Don, we will see at the club shoot won't we?

The accuracy of that barrel is the only thing stopping me screwing on a true flight at the moment, if it shot .60 it would be on there now!

----------


## Terminator

Quoting your best groups isn't what this threat is about its about hunting rifle accuracy, I'm willing to bet we wont be seeing any 1 inch groups at 400 yards at a club shoot

----------


## crnkin

Exactly.

1 MOA under all conditions is a far better criteria than .25 under perfect, and its a waste of time getting it to that point anyway, unless your 6.5 06 is a BR rifle.

Chris

----------


## baldbob

> Exactly.
> 
> 1 MOA under all conditions is a far better criteria than .25 under perfect, and its a waste of time getting it to that point anyway, unless your 6.5 06 is a BR rifle.
> 
> Chris


Who gave you permission to speak? ofcoarse its a waste of time unless you get a pmII everything else is pooze... ah crankamator  :Wink:   :Have A Nice Day:  ;0

----------


## Tui4Me

> Quoting your best groups isn't what this threat is about its about hunting rifle accuracy, I'm willing to bet we wont be seeing any 1 inch groups at 400 yards at a club shoot


The thread is about what shooters think is an acceptable average 3 shot group size, at long range, in good conditions, with normalish LR rigs.

I am saying that with a bit of longer range load development, 1/4 MOA should and will be possible for many of the blokes here. Especially with their flash 'Normalish' LR rigs i see posted and commented about.

My 7mm is not the only Sendero ive seen capable of 1/4 at long range, I have asked a lot of questions to a lot of people regarding this, especialy with a skim bed and decent load development they can shoot bloody well. You can spend thousands on a custom rifle and still not get the accuracy of a Sendero if you get a good one.

As you are personaly bringing my rifle into the equation, I am not quoting 1 off best groups here as you say, im quoting frequent groups shot in small strings over a period of visits to the range.

A Sendero is a rifle that many would class as basic long range rig, so why with a bit of effort could 1/4 MOA not be expected at long range with a more custom rifle?

----------


## baldbob

> The thread is about what shooters think is an acceptable average 3 shot group size, at long range, in good conditions, with normalish LR rigs.
> 
> I am saying that with a bit of longer range load development, 1/4 MOA should and will be possible for many of the blokes here. Especially with their flash 'Normalish' LR rigs i see posted and commented about.
> 
> My 7mm is not the only Sendero ive seen capable of 1/4 at long range, I have asked a lot of questions to a lot of people regarding this, especialy with a skim bed and decent load development they can shoot bloody well. You can spend thousands on a custom rifle and still not get the accuracy of a Sendero if you get a good one.
> 
> As you are personaly bringing my rifle into the equation, I am not quoting 1 off best groups here as you say, im quoting frequent groups shot in small strings over a period of visits to the range.
> 
> A Sendero is a rifle that many would class as basic long range rig, so why with a bit of effort could 1/4 MOA not be expected at long range with a more custom rifle?


Variables brother  :Wink:

----------


## gimp

I would love to see a target with say, 10 .25moa squares and 1 shot through each

----------


## Tui4Me

> I would love to see a target with say, 10 .25moa squares and 1 shot through each


Haha, i dont think you wil have as many takers as your last challange..

----------


## sneeze

> Haha, i dont think you wil have as many takers as your last challange..


Im guessing he would be happy with just one taker. :ORLY:

----------


## R93

> I would love to see a target with say, 10 .25moa squares and 1 shot through each


It would be pretty hard as there would be a requirement to change position slightly. Can be done in smallbore often enough. Gunna give this a go but it would have to be witnessed.
Powder burns on the target might be a bit obvious  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> It would be pretty hard as there would be a requirement to change position slightly. Can be done in smallbore often enough. Gunna give this a go but it would have to be witnessed.
> Powder burns on the target might be a bit obvious


Don't forget we are talking LR here 4-500 yards minimum  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Tui4Me

What if someone shoots x5 two shot groups that measure 1.25" at 500?

That's still 10rounds?

----------


## R93

> Don't forget we are talking LR here 4-500 yards minimum


How do you see and hold on 1.25' bulls at 500 Greg? I only have a 16x. Until I upgrade to the March or NF. Mirage is an issue where I shoot as well. I think a series of consecutive groups, up to 10 rounds or more, *witnessed* would be the ticket.
1.25 consistently? Ya might fluke it on a good day but as we know the variables change from shot to shot and over 10 rounds it can be quite a bit.
Still, I have some new brass to stretch when I get home, if I get a good day and Tui_man or BB shows up for a shot I am sure we will have to give it a go.
Have fluked a 3 shot group that went sub inch @ 500 then followed it up with a 6 inch + group due to wind. It was under an inch vertically but waterlined at 6' in bugger all readable wind. Still a dead animal at the max range I would try and take one so good enough.

----------


## veitnamcam

> I would love to see a target with say, 10 .25moa squares and 1 shot through each


So would I. Much much more difficult than than a group that could be anywhere on the target.
Think Norway summed it up with accuracy vs precision in one of his vids.

----------


## Tui4Me

> How do you see and hold on 1.25' bulls at 500 Greg? I only have a 16x. Until I upgrade to the March or NF. Mirage is an issue where I shoot as well. I think a series of consecutive groups, up to 10 rounds or more, *witnessed* would be the ticket.
> 1.25 consistently? Ya might fluke it on a good day but as we know the variables change from shot to shot and over 10 rounds it can be quite a bit.
> Still, I have some new brass to stretch when I get home, if I get a good day and Tui_man or BB shows up for a shot I am sure we will have to give it a go.
> Have fluked a 3 shot group that went sub inch @ 500 then followed it up with a 6 inch + group due to wind. It was under an inch vertically but waterlined at 6' in bugger all readable wind. Still a dead animal at the max range I would try and take one so good enough.


You aim for a larger bull, say 4" and hope for the best  :Thumbsup: 

You would struggle to do it in a single string I reckon, need to do it over 3 or so days with a nice cool barrel each time.

----------


## R93

> You aim for a larger bull, say 4" and hope for the best 
> 
> You would struggle to do it in a single string I reckon, need to do it over 3 or so days with a nice cool barrel each time.


Agreed. The time period over a few days is IMHO the best proof of accuracy and consistency of any hunting/precision rig as well.

----------


## gimp

> Don't forget we are talking LR here 4-500 yards minimum



I'm not...


Now that I'm not on my iphone,

I mean let's see someone/people shoot and hit 10 .25" dots at 100 yards from field positions (bipod and rear bag, or whatever), breaking position between shots. Simulating trying to get a first round hit on a .25 MOA target in the field. If you think that's too easy then sure, have a go at 500, but if you can't hit a .25MOA target everytime in the absence of all the atmospherics etc that come into play at long range, then there's not much point in worrying about whether your rifle groups tightly enough to at longer ranges


Groups are almost irrelevant, they mean nothing about your ability to hit a target, which is the goal of shooting things.

----------


## Tui4Me

> I'm not...
> 
> 
> Now that I'm not on my iphone,
> 
> I mean let's see some shoot and hit 10 .25" dots at 100 yards from field positions, breaking position between shots. Simulating trying to get a first round hit on a .25 MOA target in the field. If you think that's too easy then sure, have a go at 500 
> 
> 
> Groups are almost irrelevant, they mean nothing about your ability to hit a target, which is the goal of shooting things.


Let's see you  achieve multiple hits on your orange 1/2" stick on dots with a rifle that  groups 3"  :Oh Noes:

----------


## Tui4Me

The other thing to consider is that many rifles achieve better MOA at longer range once the projectiles settle down..

----------


## gimp

> Let's see you  achieve multiple hits on your orange 1/2" stick on dots with a rifle that  groups 3"



That's why I said _almost_ irrelevant


Precision is important to a degree, but worrying about getting tight groups at long range instead of worrying about being able to hit things is getting priorities wrong

I've seen plenty of rifles that must shoot really tight groups struggle a great deal to hit things, including my own (not that my shoots particularly great groups)

----------


## Tui4Me

If your rifle shoots 1/4 MOA, and If the center of a group is your point of your aim, and if you take the time to find a good suitable rest, then surely missing the target then becomes an elevation or windage fault?

Of course you can't expect to hit 1/4 or even 1/2 MOA under field conditions all the time! that's the reason you put the effort in to get an accurate as possible load in the 1st place..

----------


## gimp

> The other thing to consider is that many rifles achieve better MOA at longer range once the projectiles settle down..


You may find this interesting reading:

Homepage of Bryan Litz - A Bravenet.com Hosted Site


Best explanation I've seen for that phenomenon is parallax error at closer range, or simple psychological effects on the shooter... not being able to see impacts/group at longer range reduces excitement/tension etc

----------


## gimp

> If your rifle shoots 1/4 MOA, and If the center of a group is your point of your aim, and if you take the time to find a good suitable rest, then surely missing the target then becomes an elevation or windage fault?



You are entirely discounting the importance of the fundamentals of shooting.

----------


## Tui4Me

Do explain?

We are of course assuming that if you have your rifle to a point where it is shooting very tidy groups, that you are of course aware of basic shooting fundamentals...

----------


## gimp

The ability to get in position and put a round into a realistic, practical size target ought to be considered more important than attempting to shave 7 centimeters off your theoretical "group size" at a kilometer


I don't think .25moa is a practical target size by any means I'm just trying to make a point


You have a .25moa rifle, right? It should be easy for you then.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Of course you can't expect to hit 1/4 or even 1/2 MOA under field conditions all the time!



Now we are getting some where  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Tui4Me

Is it if that person is doing all their shooting at 1000+ yards?

No point even getting into position in front of your practical size target if you ain't gunna hit it!

For example, If you want to shoot stuff at 500yards, the 1st thing you do is get a rifle and load that is capable of shooting stuff at 500 yards!  The debate has always been about what level of MOA is required to do this, but it is obvious that a rifle that shoots 1/4 MOA will do the job better than a rifle that shoots 2MOA!

The next thing you have to do to shoot stuff at 500 yards is practice the ability to get into position and put a round in your realistic, practical size target!

If you would rather do this in reverse order you obviously don't have a taste for venison?

----------


## gimp

> We are of course assuming that if you have your rifle to a point where it is shooting very tidy groups, that you are of course aware of basic shooting fundamentals...



Shooting groups is different to hitting things.

If you don't believe me, take your .25moa rifle and shoot 10 .25moa targets.




If you improve the mechanical accuracy of your rifle from a ".5moa" rifle to a ".25moa" rifle (ignoring the fact that most of your rounds go well inside your theoretical max group size, groups are not all the same size, individual 3-shot groups tell you next to nothing, etc), then you've changed your _theoretical maximum displacement from point of aim due to dispersion_ by a total of about 3.5 centimeters at 1 kilometer, assuming perfect shooting. It's not real world practical to worry about it. Focus on shooting instead.

(Yes try and minimise vertical spread at long range by keeping velocities uniform but that's not what we're talking about here)

----------


## Tui4Me

One thing I must add more importantly, if you are going to learn anything from your practice and misses while shooting or hunting, it makes things far easier to be able to discount your rifle and load from the mix!

----------


## gimp

> For example, If you want to shoot stuff at 500yards, the 1st thing you do is get a rifle and load that is capable of shooting stuff at 500 yards!  The debate has always been about what level of MOA is required to do this, but it is obvious that a rifle that shoots 1/4 MOA will do the job better than a rifle that shoots 2MOA!
> 
> The next thing you have to do to shoot stuff at 500 yards is practice the ability to get into position and put a round in your realistic, practical size target!



All I'm saying is that there is near-total focus on your "First thing", past the point of what is practically useful, and the 'second thing' is almost universally ignored. 


What would you say the number of threads discussing accuracy/improving accuracy is like compared to the number of threads discussing improving the ability to hit things?


Self-assessment and honesty with yourself are key. If you shot a .25moa group, that's great. If it's not on the target, maybe you need to re-prioritise because a great group off the target is useless

----------


## R93

[QUOTE=gimp;9733]


> The ability to get in position and put a round into a realistic, practical size target ought to be considered more important than attempting to shave 7 centimeters off your theoretical "group size" at a kilometer






Yup. It is what field shooting is all about. I reckon there are too many variables. Even if someone manages to fire 10 rounds and score 10 out of 10 on .25' bulls at said range, I doubt it could be done everyday. If you can there is heaps of money and sponsorship to be won as world champion in several discipline's.

----------


## Tui4Me

I am talking about groups because this is what this thread is about Gimp. This is where this will go around in circles all day, what's the point in trying to hit the target in the 1st place if you don't have the load to do the job. A good load to begin with makes the whole process so much easier. If you take shortcuts  fine tuning your load, shortcuts with your drop chart and shortcuts with your practice....well good luck 

it's your opinion vs anothers

Go about your long range shooting as you wish

----------


## gimp

> This is where this will go around in circles all day, what's the point in trying to hit the target in the 1st place if you don't have the load to do the job. If you take shortcuts  fine tuning your load, shortcuts with your drop chart and shortcuts with your practice....well good luck 
> 
> it's your opinion vs anothers
> 
> Go about your long range shooting as you wish


That's a strawman. Of course you're not going to consistently hit a 1moa target with a load that groups 3moa. I'm not saying that.

What I'm saying is that since no-one is practically trying to shoot .25moa targets, and improving your theoretical precision to .25moa from say .5moa does not practically improve your ability to hit a practical sized target, then it is a waste of time.

I haven't said anything about taking shortcuts on my dropchart, in fact I think that it is a very overlooked area of long range as well, where most people simply plug numbers into a PDA and trust it. From my observations at the long range shoots I've attended that certainly isn't a 100% solution for anything.


I'm also trying to make the point that you can practice all you like, if you're not practicing the important things, it's no good to you.



These are things that are continually ignored and overlooked in favour of "how do I get a .25moa load"

----------


## gimp

Before someone jumps in with some ad hominem, I'm not claiming to be a brilliant shot and able to hit the target perfectly everytime either. I need a lot of practice at the moment, I just maybe have a different idea about what is important to practice... and it comes back to honest self-assessment

----------


## veitnamcam

While I dont know you gimp it seems you have a real bee in your bonnet about groups.
It is what the thread is about, and what is pratical to strive for...as a group.
It goes without saying if you cant put that group in the kill zone or the bull you need to practice more or get closer

----------


## Tui4Me

I think this also goes without saying, but I will spell it out for Gimp to avoid a possible backlash, that it's very important not to create an  obsession around group size, spending time, money and energy striving endlessly for the last few mm's that won't come! 

it's not a mission impossible effort to do a bit of load development at the longer ranges, and establish a load that seems to preform the best it can. It's up to the individual where they choose to leave this step, which is the point of this thread!

----------


## R93

I think Gimp's point adds to the thread, personally.
The thread is about groups at LR but if you cant fire that group central in the intended target whatever the range, they are pointless.

----------


## Wildman

Surly if you're just interested in groups then the smallest you can shoot is king?

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Surly if you're just interested in groups then the smallest you can shoot is king?


The most sensible/achievable smallest average group you can shoot, is what this thread is about, what size is it ? what would you be happy with ?  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Wildman

> The most sensible/achievable smallest average group you can shoot, is what this thread is about, what size is it ? what would you be happy with ?


That needs some context though. Or are you asking for various contexts?

----------


## crzyman

MOA, its the person behind it thats more important :Cool:

----------


## Mossie

My "resident know nothing" opinion is that 0.5MOA is what a good LR rifle should shoot. But as is mentioned, there is no point in this if you shoot two groups - one group @0.25MOA but 4MOA high then a 0.125MOA group 4MOA low.

In my opinion, the requirement is a combination of 0.5MOA groups in a consistent vertical location. At least with this, it give the nut behind the butt the best oppourtunity to achieve the kill. From there - any larger group sizes come from the nut behind the butt, and it is easier to correct without the variable of an inaccurate rifle.

For me - I know my rifle can do 0.25 MOA. I have had days were I have shot several groups at different ranges that have met this. But I also know that I am not the best shot, and I have days where I pull the shots, typically up and right. BUt because I have removed the variable of the accuracy of the rifle, I can work on the rest  :Have A Nice Day: 

So my short answer without the rambling - 0.5MOA groups  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## baldbob

> My "resident know nothing" opinion is that 0.5MOA is what a good LR rifle should shoot. But as is mentioned, there is no point in this if you shoot two groups - one group @0.25MOA but 4MOA high then a 0.125MOA group 4MOA low.
> 
> In my opinion, the requirement is a combination of 0.5MOA groups in a consistent vertical location. At least with this, it give the nut behind the butt the best oppourtunity to achieve the kill. From there - any larger group sizes come from the nut behind the butt, and it is easier to correct without the variable of an inaccurate rifle.
> 
> For me - I know my rifle can do 0.25 MOA. I have had days were I have shot several groups at different ranges that have met this. But I also know that I am not the best shot, and I have days where I pull the shots, typically up and right. BUt because I have removed the variable of the accuracy of the rifle, I can work on the rest 
> 
> So my short answer without the rambling - 0.5MOA groups


I would just like to add that guys who shoot LR sometimes can often have cases of extreme miss as the variables can move vertical the impact as much as 1m at times due to vertical wind effect, temp. humidity, mirage, air pressure ( not height above sea level).. Guys need to understand these variables to shoot well over a broad range of country and seasons.....

Another point I would really like to hammer down and this is the use of chronigraphs....
It is imperitive for consistantcy of your chrony info over the range of variables and  shooting to gain solid knowledge of what your load is doing speedwise, I have found this to be a/the major contributing issue on and in many cases is a poor reading chrony IE a chrony reading way out (and most of the F1 chronys do) combined with the poor BC information = no thanks please come again.... (yet guys swear there loads doing such and such)
You really do have to do alot of shooting to understand this, but purchasing an oehler chrony was the best thing ive ever done, I now solidly know how fast my loads are going....

The next thing is the use of fair and proper BC measurements... And when Im shooting targex I have my own devised figures taken from matching trajectorys over a number of range sessions.... Brian litz book is a MUST OWN to anyone that wants to shoot 400m or further...

Have one of the above out and you will find yourself testing at the range, then on an animal on the hill and miss OR even both slightly out... Ive seen the question itself asked on  these forums many times (Y DID I MISS...sniff sniff)..

Ive found that with finally having the gear and knowledge to ensure my numbers are spot on theres more room for error than ever before and the use of a rangecard is much more accurate through the variable ranges.......

----------


## Wildman

So basically if you can't transfer your close range group accuracy to targets at greater distances then the size of your group is irrelevent...

----------


## mudgripz

A somewhat unusual discussion. 

Have had the good luck to shoot in many comps/championships over the years and I would say quite clearly that practice to achieve precision grouping on the range always improves field hunting accuracy - whether single or multiple shots. We do not win events without this practice, and nor do maintain consistent high level field accuracy without it. 

I have never yet met club, provincial or NZ champions who prefer shooting just single shots at a target and disdain groups - for any reason. You would not be carrying the trophy for long. 

I think in practical terms the time spent shooting range groups, and the very precise skills acquired over time in this process, prepare shooters very well for field accuracy situations. It is precisely how I and other old has-beens sharpen young hunters' field accuracy (and stats) today.  :Have A Nice Day: .

----------


## mudgripz

Personally I would not differentiate between precision shooting and accuracy as you have. Simply, whether on range or in field, in both cases we are trying to place the round(s) precisely where we want them.

If we wish to assess the merits of an ammunition load or make, a particular rifle, or for that matter a competing shooter, we would never do so with single shots. We do so with groups - it is the best measure for these purposes, and this is why we shoot in this manner for most competitions. 

Note competitions vary widely - some comps actually require movement from target to target as with small bore, and some specifically do not allow a fixed posture e.g. some NZDA standing or running target events with high recoil centrefires. 

Maintaining fixed bench position and pressures can give us greatest accuracy, but even then we quite often shoot consecutive groups on seperate targets e.g. with club shoot rimfires. It may be 5 or perhaps 10 into one target at 100, then a slight positional move to left for another target/group. 

I think you will find the target variation that you are looking for is actually covered in a number of different disciplines - less so with centrefire bench/LR.

But - whether we are shooting groups in a single target category, or handling small positional movements as we travel from one target to another, shooting groups on the range is standard practice. It is how we test ourselves and equipment, practice precision accuracy (my terms), learn to recognise and concentrate on minute details, then learn to do these quickly and consistently for range and field. This is how people get to win events, and I have to say experienced competition shooters certainly carry their range practice benefits into the field - achieve at a higher level.   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## 7mmsaum

My first clean/dirty cold bore shot is very important, Sika rarely give me another shot

----------


## Kiwishooter

Well I'm new here and after this post you can call me anything you like :Grin: 

Accuracy and Precision are close to my heart and I've been practicing at both for quite a while.

I have read in this post about hunting rifles capable of shooting 0.25moa consistantly, I've also heard about rifles like this from hunters but never actually seen one do it. 

With regards Gimps post 


> I would love to see a target with say, 10 .25moa squares and 1 shot through each


 I would love to see someone actually do this at 100yds or 0.5moa squares at 200yds or the appropriate size square at any other yardage, either without changing position or over several days just to simulate hunting conditions, with a hunting rifle and an independant witness.

People talk about 0.25moa accuracy/precision, lets take a look at range shooting where shooters are shooting at known distances with target rifles what accuracy/precision do they achieve??? One form of target shooting where the accuracy is measured is Benchrest shooting, now this type of shooting is performed from a solid bench and rest (some say this is cheating and all bullets should go through the same hole) this eliminates variables like hold, movement from rests etc. This shooting is also performed over wind flags which give an indication of wind direction, strength and also mirage is clearly seen through the scopes they use. Now since the results from these competitions are easy to find we can see that these specially built rifles shooting one of the most accurate cartridges ever designed are capable of shooting an aggregate of around 0.200" - 0.250" sometimes smaller sometimes bigger depending on the wind conditions at the time. Now for those that don't know an aggregate consists of 5 X five shot groups at 100yds and 5 X five shot groups at 200yds giving 10 x five shot groups. The thing that I find interesting about the groups they shoot is that some are smaller than the aggregate and some are bigger........if you asked any of those competitors if they can shoot every shot inside 0.25moa the answer would be "NO", my rifle is usually capable of it but it comes back to my ability to tune the load and read the wind.

Now the thing that amuses me is that when it comes to people saying their hunting rifle is capable of shooting 0.25moa consistantly at 500yds or any distance really they can never be found at a range or competition to prove it.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the rifles are incapable of it, some maybe capable of it, but when the average field shooting position, shooters ability and rifle capability are taken into account, is it "possible" to shoot .25moa consistantly when Benchrest shooters shooting from solid benches and rests, using wind flags are not consistantly capable of doing it.

If anyone cares to prove that their rifle is capable of it then please post the pics with an independant witness......I would love to see the pics of anybodys attempt even if they don't achieve 0.25moa, just to see what a hunting rifle IS capable of................Kiwi

----------


## R93

I had a go at Gimps challenge when I was home last with my .223 barrel on the blaser. I would have been stoked if I could have maintained .5 inch.
I fired 10 rounds at 10 aiming marks I like for 100yrds. I managed out of the 10 rounds to have 7 within .5 or better and had one flyer that was my fault but still ruins the attempt and 2 others within 1' 
I had the flyer on the 4th shot and the 2 with in the inch were my last 2.
I will try and do it over a few days next time for a giggle.
It is, I think possible to achieve the challenge but to do it consistently would be epic.

----------


## Dead is better

A 31.75mm on target group at 457m... Yep I'd LOVE to see somebody do that. My bloody crosshair is that wide, and in reality unseen unexpected gusts WILL blow you off this theoretical hair we seem to be aiming at. Two things i get from this thread - 1 precision is about discapline and 2. accuracy is the real world application

I had myself a very sobering experience at the range today. A dude turned up with a ferrari of a rifle and made 4 smoking hot clover hole groups at 100m off a bi-pod. I'm starting to understand what the wiser heads are saying here about having realistic expectations and goals. That guy said he'd been reloading for 2 years and from the look of his setup i'd have to say he'd spent 15k +. I'll be extriemly happy if i can hit 1/2 of what He can with my T3 sporter. While i have full faith i'll get there eventually i do see i've got a long way to go yet.

----------


## distant stalker

I did 5 3 shot groups which stayed under .5" with mine at 100 and posted the pics in the shooting challenge thread.
This was off the bench with a good rest
During the shoot with norway I tried some of the challenges with a less than average rear rest/poor shooting position when moving into the shooting spot and it showed how easy it is to really throw your shooting off. I then sat with a proper rear rest and put 3 shots in the .5 moa black dot just to remind myself it could be done if I set myself up properly. 
This was with a suppressed t3

----------


## R93

> I did 5 3 shot groups which stayed under .5" with mine at 100 and posted the pics in the shooting challenge thread.
> This was off the bench with a good rest
> During the shoot with norway I tried some of the challenges with a less than average rear rest/poor shooting position when moving into the shooting spot and it showed how easy it is to really throw your shooting off. I then sat with a proper rear rest and put 3 shots in the .5 moa black dot just to remind myself it could be done if I set myself up properly. 
> This was with a suppressed t3


Thats bloody good going HH very nice shooting. If anyone posts a witnessed .25 10 shot target I will send them a 1125ml of their choice as long as it is Glenfiddich :Cool:

----------


## Kiwishooter

I appreciate your honesty R93 and Horihunter, and do know that 0.5moa is achievable with a very good factory hunting rifle, can't say that it can be done EVERY time though.

The ability to do it consistantly at 100yds is a lot easier than doing it consistantly at 300, 400, 500 or even further and without wind indicators it's even harder.

Question if the clouds are travelling left to right what is the wind doing at ground level?

To give you an idea of both accuracy and precision, the following five shot group was shot at 300yds, the 4 bullets in the one hole were shot in one condition and the hole out by itself was shot in another condition I held approx 4" right and 2" up from where I held for the first 4 shots........Kiwi

----------


## Josh

> Your going to reward an effort like that with cooking whiskey?


BLASPHEMY.

I'm a bit of a Dalwinnie fan.

----------


## R93

> Your going to reward an effort like that with cooking whiskey?


Oooooh them there is fighting words!!!!!
You stick to your educated palette and a bottle of Early Times :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

Plenty sure no one is going to hit 10 individual 0.25 MOA targets at 100m with a 0.5 MOA group shooting rifle.....

----------


## R93

Question if the clouds are travelling left to right what is the wind doing at ground level?

Eh? Due to a million different factors it can be doing anything at ground level. Simple meteorolgy.

----------


## R93

> +1
> 
> Actually, at ground level the wind is probably doing very little, as the shear between the wind and the earths surface creates a bit of a dead zone. 
> 
> Although now Im just being a dick


It will definitely be doing less at ground level no matter what due to the earth creating a friction layer. Athough I am correct I believe I am the bigger dick for knowing that.

----------


## Kiwishooter

> Question if the clouds are travelling left to right what is the wind doing at ground level?
> 
> Eh? Due to a million different factors it can be doing anything at ground level. Simple meteorolgy.


The reason I asked that question was someone posted that they used the cloud direction along with other things to tell what the wind was doing between him and his target.......I couldn't see the relevance of what the clouds were doing but I don't know everything...........Kiwi

----------


## Kiwishooter

True but then I may be shooting across a gully or down hill or even uphill. 
If the cloud is going left to right at about 50 yds and I've got nothing to indicate what it is doing at 100 yds will the wind be travelling the same direction as it is at 50yds??

----------


## R93

> True but then I may be shooting across a gully or down hill or even uphill. 
> If the cloud is going left to right at about 50 yds and I've got nothing to indicate what it is doing at 100 yds will the wind be travelling the same direction as it is at 50yds??


Are you taking the piss? I wouldnt care what the wind is doing at 100yrds if thats as far as I am shooting, depending what I am trying to achieve of course but generally it wouldnt bother me.
Terrain and temp and time of day will dictate direction and within a 100 yrds up hill or down hill it should be the same. Unless you are near a crest where  a rotor effect can develop.
You must be taking the piss coz I was dumb enough to try and answer it.

----------


## Greyghost

The last 9 words of your reply 93 are the best , Dont be so hard on yourself . I know your not that bad !!!

----------


## R93

[QUOTE=Greyghost;17572]The last 9 words of your reply 93 are the best , Dont be so hard on yourself . I know your not that bad !!![/QUOTE

At least I eat my veggies! What are you doing inside and on the puter? Has the boss gone soft? Did you end up with a salmon?

----------


## Kiwishooter

> Are you taking the piss? I wouldnt care what the wind is doing at 100yrds if thats as far as I am shooting, depending what I am trying to achieve of course but generally it wouldnt bother me.
> Terrain and temp and time of day will dictate direction and within a 100 yrds up hill or down hill it should be the same. Unless you are near a crest where  a rotor effect can develop.
> You must be taking the piss coz I was dumb enough to try and answer it.


No I'm not taking the piss, I thought the question was quite simple and I am trying to learn what the "experts" on here can teach me about reading wind while hunting........while target shooting I have wind indicators to read and give an indication of what the wind is doing between me and my target and what my projectile will do. 
While out hunting it's a different story so I was asking questions, by your answer it's obviious you'd rather poke fun and try and ridicule someone instead of contributing a sensible and valid answer...........or does the wind not alter or modify a projectiles path............Kiwi

----------


## veitnamcam

I think what R93 was trying to say was sub say 200y any wind that a animal will be out in the open in, will not cause a miss or even a poor hit.

----------


## distant stalker

> Thats bloody good going HH very nice shooting. If anyone posts a witnessed .25 10 shot target I will send them a 1125ml of their choice as long as it is Glenfiddich


I need a witness!! :Thumbsup:

----------


## distant stalker

> Question if the clouds are travelling left to right what is the wind doing at ground level?
> 
> Eh? Due to a million different factors it can be doing anything at ground level. Simple meteorolgy.


Dont know but I just farted and know what the wind just behind me is doing...

----------


## R93

> No I'm not taking the piss, I thought the question was quite simple and I am trying to learn what the "experts" on here can teach me about reading wind while hunting........while target shooting I have wind indicators to read and give an indication of what the wind is doing between me and my target and what my projectile will do. 
> While out hunting it's a different story so I was asking questions, by your answer it's obviious you'd rather poke fun and try and ridicule someone instead of contributing a sensible and valid answer...........or does the wind not alter or modify a projectiles path............Kiwi


Chill out! I thought you were poking fun and I believe I only ridiculed myself. You have posted photo's of groups you have shot at 100 and 200, I am sorry if I assumed you had a clue a what winds would be a concern at those ranges. You need a thicker skin if that offended you. I am also sure no one on this site considers themself an expert. 
In a hunting situation I dont care what the wind is doing at 100 yrds or even 200. If it windy enough to effect my pill at those ranges I wont even be hunting.

Just seen Vietnamcam's post, thanks Cam it is what I was trying to say.

----------


## distant stalker

I thought the question was a piss take too, if hunting I only look at the clouds to see what the weather is doing, look at grass/trees etc to get an indicator of what the wind is doing lower down. Pretty difficult to get it right for the entire flight path though. Norway showed us a few handy tricks that keep you on minute of shoulder pretty easily

----------


## Kiwishooter

> Leaves us with the options of shit stirrer or bullshitter.


Guess it's pretty easy to get a whole lot of meaningles dribble, and actually I'm neither......want to come to the range for a shooting match? I'll set the wind flags and loan you an accurate rifle. You might be able to answer the question.

Actually I would have thought that some hunters on here would have an idea of how to read the wind in field conditions, and would be willing to educate.

----------


## R93

> Guess it's pretty easy to get a whole lot of meaningles dribble, and actually I'm neither......want to come to the range for a shooting match? I'll set the wind flags and loan you an accurate rifle. You might be able to answer the question.
> 
> Actually I would have thought that some hunters on here would have an idea of how to read the wind in field conditions, and would be willing to educate.


Meaningless dribble? It reflects on the question does it not?  It seems to me you know the answer to your own question and just want to impart your wisdom on us. Please do.
We all have something we are good at KS. Your invite to Tussock is just another attempt IMHO to impose your own belief that you are better and know more about the subject. Drilling holes in paper is to me only important to see if my gear is ready for the bush. A 30 knot wind will only push the calibre I use for hunting 1' at 100. Hardly worth a mention.
I would hazzard a guess Tussock would give you a run for your money at boring old BR and I would put money on him out further.

----------


## R93

I hope the pine tree came in handy?

----------


## R93

> Missus and I burnt 12 cubic meters of firewood last year It was cold! (record in drafty old farmhouse was 29 degrees/0 outside).


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## el borracho

> Last Thar I shot was 550m away. I was using my 6.5x47Lapua. The wind was in my face (000) and I was shooting directly up a large valley. I could see from the tussock a gully that came into the main valley at 090 was discourging a strong wind 90 degrees (so full effect) accross my projectiles flight path. I could not measure that wind, but by comparing what the tussock next to me was doing relative to my Kestrel to what the tussock at the mouth of the valley was doing, and what I had seen tussock do before, I estimated it to be 3m/sec. Then I shagged around with the range finder a little more and measured the path of my projectile across that gully mouth to be 300m. The wind in my face was 2m/sec but the effective wind was 0, so I dialed wind for 300m @ 3m/sec. 
> 
> Thar died, I ate him.


 How far from you was the opening to the gully at a 90deg right angle to you ?

----------


## Kiwishooter

> Tussock would give you a run for your money at boring old BR and I would put money on him out further.


How much? and is Tussock willing?......200yds sounds good or do you want 300yds or more?....I'll put up $1k, are you willing to match it??

Despite all your posturing above, it was Tussock that did the name calling and since he thinks I'm a bullshitter I invited him to prove it

R93 I take it the 30knot wind moves your bullet 1inch at 100.......not the 1 foot as you put in your post........may I ask what caliber, projectile and velocity?

----------


## gimp

Chill out, back up, drop the egos. You're just misunderstanding each other.

COMMUNICATION, PEOPLE

----------


## Skinny

I'm not a LR shooter but I reckon if it's windy get closer.... it affects the the bullet and can help in sneaking in closer  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## gimp

I'm an internet expert. I can tell you all about the internet. You see, it's this thing for looking at pornography and arguing with people about retarded shit

----------


## R93

> I'm an internet expert. I can tell you all about the internet. You see, it's this thing for looking at pornography and arguing with people about retarded shit


Que, Quagmire. Giggidy!

----------


## Kiwishooter

> A 30 knot wind will only push the calibre I use for hunting 1' at 100. Hardly worth a mention..


R93 I would really love to know what cartrdge you use that only has 1inch of wind drift at 100 yards in a 30 knot wind.

As best as I can tell the 7mmWSM shooting a Hornady 162gr Amax with a bc of 0.625 would have to achieve 4000fps and it would still have a wind drift of 1.1" at 100yds in a 30 knot wind. At 1000yds this load would only have about 138" of wind drift which is approx 70" better than the same bullet at 2950fps. That is a real advantage.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Expert aye?


I got told once that an expert was "a drip under pressure"  :Yaeh Am Not Durnk:

----------


## Kiwishooter

Tussock I have no idea what m/sec is so looked it up and found out that 3 m/sec = 6.7mph

I also found this
Beaufort Wind Scale Windspeed 
in MPH  Description - Visible Condition 

0  Calm smoke rises vertically  
1 - 4  Light air direction of wind shown by smoke but not by wind vanes  
4 - 7  Light breeze wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary wind vane moved by wind  
8 - 12  Gentle breeze leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends light flag  
13 - 18  Moderate breeze raises dust and loose paper; small branches are moved  
19 - 24  Fresh breeze small trees in leaf begin to sway; crested wavelets form on inland water  
25 - 31  Strong breeze large branches in motion; telephone wires whistle; umbrellas used with difficulty  
32 - 38  Moderate gale whole trees in motion; inconvenience in walking against wind  
39 - 46  Fresh gale breaks twigs off trees; generally impedes progress  
47 - 54  Strong gale slight structural damage occurs; chimney pots and slates removed  
55 - 63  Whole gale trees uprooted; considerable structural damage occurs  
64 - 72  Storm very rarely experienced; accompanied by widespread damage  
73+  Hurricane devastation occurs

----------


## crzyman

At last, something useful in this thread.

----------


## The Claw

> R93 I would really love to know what cartrdge you use that only has 1inch of wind drift at 100 yards in a 30 knot wind.
> 
> As best as I can tell the 7mmWSM shooting a Hornady 162gr Amax with a bc of 0.625 would have to achieve 4000fps and it would still have a wind drift of 1.1" at 100yds in a 30 knot wind. At 1000yds this load would only have about 138" of wind drift which is approx 70" better than the same bullet at 2950fps. That is a real advantage.


My 338 drifts less than an inch in a 30 knot sidewind @ 100 yards. 300gr (.450 g7 BC) @ 3,275 fps. 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Kiwishooter

> My 338 drifts less than an inch in a 30 knot sidewind @ 100 yards. 300gr (.450 g7 BC) @ 3,275 fps. 
> 
> Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2


That's pretty impresive so is that the 338 Lapua Magnum or some other 338? Also which projectile are you using?

----------


## The Claw

> That's pretty impresive so is that the 338 Lapua Magnum or some other 338? Also which projectile are you using?


Berger Gen 2 Hybrid, using custom BC as the .420 BC means it will shoot high. Chey Tac case (Greg Duley's 338 Lunatic)

----------


## Kiwishooter

> Berger Gen 2 Hybrid, using custom BC as the .420 BC means it will shoot high. Chey Tac case (Greg Duley's 338 Lunatic)


So do you use it for hunting and what weight is the rifle??

----------


## R93

> Que, Quagmire. Giggidy!


I was starting to think I was the only one who watched/loved Family Guy. Farkin funny when they told Quagmire that you could look at porn on the internet.......classic.

----------


## veitnamcam

> I was starting to think I was the only one who watched/loved Family Guy. Farkin funny when the told Quagmire that you could look at porn on the internet.......classic.


Arguably the best cartoon adult comedy on tv. Nothing is sacred. :Thumbsup:

----------


## R93

> Arguably the best cartoon adult comedy on tv. Nothing is sacred.


Not bad for a yank comedy alright. I hear Peter's fights with the chicken are coming to an end??????

----------


## K95

Not the chicken fights! Someone told me they do them because it's cheaper haha


Dad, what's the blow-hole for?
 I'll tell you what it's not for, son. And when I do, you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.

----------


## R93

> Not the chicken fights! Someone told me they do them because it's cheaper haha
> 
> 
> Dad, what's the blow-hole for?
>  I'll tell you what it's not for, son. And when I do, you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.


Classic Peter!!

----------


## mucko

> Just wondering where I should be heading with group sizes.
> 
> Is it feasible to be trying/striving the shoot 0.25  or what ever, moa groups or is anything under 1moa acceptable ? 
> 
> Is 0.25 or what ever, moa unrealistic/impossible. 
> 
> If it isn't that possible whats the point trying to achieve it unless you like pulling all your hair out, for me that wouldn't take long 
> 
> Just trying to get an idea what other shooters think....


What size target do you want to hit at what range, i would want sub moa, as 1 moa @ 100 yards = about an inch and then two inches at 200 yards and so forth

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> What size target do you want to hit at what range, i would want sub moa, as 1 moa @ 100 yards = about an inch and then two inches at 200 yards and so forth


I have come to the conclusion that obviously less is more but around an average of .5-.6 moa at range is where you need to be & is working fine for me so far.

I would like better but field conditions really don't allow that most of the time beyond 5-600 yards......

Having enough "horsepower" when shots end up being slightly less than ideal is helpful.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> So Greg, your averaging .5-.6MOA to range in field conditions with those big guns?


Have been quite easily at 500 & 625 yards have had 3 shots down to .23 but usually .34 & up to .85 in the wind......usually not to far from intended poi.

Had 2 misses at 950 out of 5 shots in changable conditions & a very crappy position 34 degress up, the other day, both misses were first shots, I'm slowly getting better  :Wink: 

Need to get the dies sorted better for the 375 & then I will get that humming again.....mmmmmm big high bc bullets...mmmmmm

----------


## el borracho

You should be good to win the gunslinger comp next time its on with stats like that Greg !!! I shot a measly 860 yards the other day and missed every single shot -I dont know what the group size was as I couldnt see it throught the glare of the sun lol

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> You should be good to win the gunslinger comp next time its on with stats like that Greg !!! I shot a measly 860 yards the other day and missed every single shot -I dont know what the group size was as I couldnt see it throught the glare of the sun lol


Nope not going :-)

That can happen very easily at any range  :Pissed Off: 

I saw a pic of a 3 shot group the other day approx .27 moa well past 1400  :Cool:

----------


## gimp

> I saw a pic of a 3 shot group the other day approx .27 moa well past 1400


Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?

----------


## James

> Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?


 :Grin:  ...why do I feel like we've just gone full-circle?  :Thumbsup:

----------


## James

Ps. Debate about group size vs. first-round hits aside (I found it quite interesting, and can see the merits of both):

-why are we talking about *3*-shot groups rather than *5*? If we're going to do groups, we might as well do them properly?? (or have I missed something here?).

----------


## R93

Because I thought, we are talking about LR hunting rifles. Where is it gospel that 5 rounds is the correct number to consitute a group? Initially a 5-10 rnd group has its merits, no doubt. If you have established your rifle is accurate and your rounds fall on your POA then 3 rounds, which consitute a group by the way, are suffice for practical hunting needs.
To fire 5 rounds every time you check your rifle after that is a waste of good ammo as far as I am concerned.
Cold bore hits on POA is where its at, whatever the range for most peoples purposes. 
Paper tamperers, firing 5, 10 or 20 round serials can wank all they like over what suits them.
A more realistic test IMO, of a shooter and his gear, is a group fired at the same POA over several days no matter what the conditions. Just settling in behind the rifle will play havoc on some.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?


The pic I saw had 1 hole 1" below centre, one directly below it slightly right & one below that to the left wrecking the group  :Have A Nice Day: 

I have no idea the order they were shot or whether the shown target was the one aimed at.

It matters not, a group that size in that position is a great accomplishment at any range let alone at 1600 metres  :Grin:

----------


## James

> Because I thought, we are talking about LR hunting rifles. Where is it gospel that 5 rounds is the correct number to consitute a group? Initially a 5-10 rnd group has its merits, no doubt. If you have established your rifle is accurate and your rounds fall on your POA then 3 rounds, which consitute a group by the way, are suffice for practical hunting needs.
> To fire 5 rounds every time you check your rifle after that is a waste of good ammo as far as I am concerned.
> Cold bore hits on POA is where its at, whatever the range for most peoples purposes. 
> Paper tamperers, firing 5, 10 or 20 round serials can wank all they like over what suits them.
> A more realistic test IMO, of a shooter and his gear, is a group fired at the same POA over several days no matter what the conditions. Just settling in behind the rifle will play havoc on some.


Ah good, thanks- that's just the kind of information I was looking for when I said "(or have I missed something here?)". -What you've said makes good sense in the context of "every time you check your rifle" as you say.

-However, if I was shooting groups for load development, or varifying ballistics at longer range I think I'd still use 5 shots, just for the greater relevance of a larger sample size. (Sorry, that sounded really wanky- I meant: just because 5 shots gives a better example of patterns/trends/consistency). Each to their own on that one though I'm sure.

----------


## R93

> Not the chicken fights! Someone told me they do them because it's cheaper haha
> 
> 
> Dad, what's the blow-hole for?
>  I'll tell you what it's not for, son. And when I do, you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.


Classic Peter!!

----------


## mucko

> Just wondering where I should be heading with group sizes.
> 
> Is it feasible to be trying/striving the shoot 0.25  or what ever, moa groups or is anything under 1moa acceptable ? 
> 
> Is 0.25 or what ever, moa unrealistic/impossible. 
> 
> If it isn't that possible whats the point trying to achieve it unless you like pulling all your hair out, for me that wouldn't take long 
> 
> Just trying to get an idea what other shooters think....


What size target do you want to hit at what range, i would want sub moa, as 1 moa @ 100 yards = about an inch and then two inches at 200 yards and so forth

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> What size target do you want to hit at what range, i would want sub moa, as 1 moa @ 100 yards = about an inch and then two inches at 200 yards and so forth


I have come to the conclusion that obviously less is more but around an average of .5-.6 moa at range is where you need to be & is working fine for me so far.

I would like better but field conditions really don't allow that most of the time beyond 5-600 yards......

Having enough "horsepower" when shots end up being slightly less than ideal is helpful.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> So Greg, your averaging .5-.6MOA to range in field conditions with those big guns?


Have been quite easily at 500 & 625 yards have had 3 shots down to .23 but usually .34 & up to .85 in the wind......usually not to far from intended poi.

Had 2 misses at 950 out of 5 shots in changable conditions & a very crappy position 34 degress up, the other day, both misses were first shots, I'm slowly getting better  :Wink: 

Need to get the dies sorted better for the 375 & then I will get that humming again.....mmmmmm big high bc bullets...mmmmmm

----------


## el borracho

You should be good to win the gunslinger comp next time its on with stats like that Greg !!! I shot a measly 860 yards the other day and missed every single shot -I dont know what the group size was as I couldnt see it throught the glare of the sun lol

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> You should be good to win the gunslinger comp next time its on with stats like that Greg !!! I shot a measly 860 yards the other day and missed every single shot -I dont know what the group size was as I couldnt see it throught the glare of the sun lol


Nope not going :-)

That can happen very easily at any range  :Pissed Off: 

I saw a pic of a 3 shot group the other day approx .27 moa well past 1400  :Cool:

----------


## gimp

> I saw a pic of a 3 shot group the other day approx .27 moa well past 1400


Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?

----------


## James

> Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?


 :Grin:  ...why do I feel like we've just gone full-circle?  :Thumbsup:

----------


## James

Ps. Debate about group size vs. first-round hits aside (I found it quite interesting, and can see the merits of both):

-why are we talking about *3*-shot groups rather than *5*? If we're going to do groups, we might as well do them properly?? (or have I missed something here?).

----------


## R93

Because I thought, we are talking about LR hunting rifles. Where is it gospel that 5 rounds is the correct number to consitute a group? Initially a 5-10 rnd group has its merits, no doubt. If you have established your rifle is accurate and your rounds fall on your POA then 3 rounds, which consitute a group by the way, are suffice for practical hunting needs.
To fire 5 rounds every time you check your rifle after that is a waste of good ammo as far as I am concerned.
Cold bore hits on POA is where its at, whatever the range for most peoples purposes. 
Paper tamperers, firing 5, 10 or 20 round serials can wank all they like over what suits them.
A more realistic test IMO, of a shooter and his gear, is a group fired at the same POA over several days no matter what the conditions. Just settling in behind the rifle will play havoc on some.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Cool, how close was the first one to the centre of the target?


The pic I saw had 1 hole 1" below centre, one directly below it slightly right & one below that to the left wrecking the group  :Have A Nice Day: 

I have no idea the order they were shot or whether the shown target was the one aimed at.

It matters not, a group that size in that position is a great accomplishment at any range let alone at 1600 metres  :Grin:

----------


## James

> Because I thought, we are talking about LR hunting rifles. Where is it gospel that 5 rounds is the correct number to consitute a group? Initially a 5-10 rnd group has its merits, no doubt. If you have established your rifle is accurate and your rounds fall on your POA then 3 rounds, which consitute a group by the way, are suffice for practical hunting needs.
> To fire 5 rounds every time you check your rifle after that is a waste of good ammo as far as I am concerned.
> Cold bore hits on POA is where its at, whatever the range for most peoples purposes. 
> Paper tamperers, firing 5, 10 or 20 round serials can wank all they like over what suits them.
> A more realistic test IMO, of a shooter and his gear, is a group fired at the same POA over several days no matter what the conditions. Just settling in behind the rifle will play havoc on some.


Ah good, thanks- that's just the kind of information I was looking for when I said "(or have I missed something here?)". -What you've said makes good sense in the context of "every time you check your rifle" as you say.

-However, if I was shooting groups for load development, or varifying ballistics at longer range I think I'd still use 5 shots, just for the greater relevance of a larger sample size. (Sorry, that sounded really wanky- I meant: just because 5 shots gives a better example of patterns/trends/consistency). Each to their own on that one though I'm sure.

----------

