Thread: 3 shot groups are useless!

Originally Posted by JohnDuxbury

The problem I can see is all the stickers covering all the other bullet holes

If I was hiding evidence I would have buried it

Originally Posted by gimp

Indeed, which is a point that has been made repeatedly I think.








For those that wish to state that this subject is irrelevant to the average hunter who wishes to remain ignorant: Yes, we get that. The idea of having a "0.x MOA rifle" is also irrelevant to the average hunter however in practical application - it is inconsistent to want to make irrelevant statements around the precision of your rifle system, but not want to discuss the merits of the criteria used to arrive at that conclusion.

This and the post of your own you quoted hold a conceit that provides a false conclusion.

For the average hunter it is important to have a proficient reasonable/relatable idea of your rifles accuracy and consistency. Like it or not MOA is the most commonly understood one. The "Big Target" of a game animal is probably about 200mm on average. 8 inch. If your rifle shoots close to 1 moa, that gives you 50mm around the edge on a long shot of 400 yards, to play with before you take into account any other factor. Its just we dont need to know the absolute ability of the rifle. As long as each time we check zero its performing the same within acceptable reason.
My argument is that, and Ill hold this ground. Very few are interested in shooting for shootings sake. The reasons for that can be varied. Ill give my own experience as example.
For a short period of my life when I was single, I had time and money to play with firearms. I had an 800 meter range set up from my back door. I dallied around the edge of long-range and accuracy. Even in the last few years, while Id moved away form it myself. I had PRC shooters using my range to practice.
The things i found.
1- I could not afford to compete On the components front alone. A position Id say more are in than not. 1000 primers,Projectiles, powder on a scale needed, are not affordable items. It might well be months of small buys simply to put together enough to enable you to simply work up a load and use it for your hunting. Having to ask your partner if this month we can afford 70 dollars for powder for the year is a real situation.

2- The overwhelming factor to achieving a consistent group on center beyond 400 was not the rifle, or the shooter. It was wind and under the very realistic hunting situation of the valley my range was up, I watched guys who won competitions, get the wind wrong by 180 degrees and a foot off center quite regularly.

It was wind above all else that developed my ethos of no shot on game over 400 except for exceptional circumstances.

Tentmans test.
Id attempt it for fun, and fail. Because of the wind, because of my unfamiliarity of shooting such distances, because My scope choice is not great for that purpose and because I have not spent the money on finding the perfect setup. But what (I read from his post is that even those who do do alot of what you preach, will still fail as well. So my question is- is the standard you wish us to achieve, too high?
At the end of the day- your argument is about the few that wish to fool themselves. We have seen on these forums plenty of polls etc re distances shot, and most hunters are not kidding themselves. they know the limitations and stick to ranges that are practical.

3 shots under the conditions that myself, Tahr, and others have described is absolutely, totally a successful indicator.

Ask yourself. What does it take to get to the stage you can shoot 5x5 shot groups?

It only has a 3 shot mag so a 3 shot group is all I need, it's not a long range rifle.

[QUOTE=whanahuia;1579112]This and the post of your own you quoted hold a conceit that provides a false conclusion.
[]/quote]

Can you please articulate what this false conclusion is? Just summarise in a sentence so I can be sure I am following your thinking

For the average hunter it is important to have a proficient reasonable/relatable idea of your rifles accuracy and consistency. Like it or not MOA is the most commonly understood one. The "Big Target" of a game animal is probably about 200mm on average. 8 inch. If your rifle shoots close to 1 moa, that gives you 50mm around the edge on a long shot of 400 yards, to play with before you take into account any other factor. Its just we dont need to know the absolute ability of the rifle. As long as each time we check zero its performing the same within acceptable reason.

This is essentially my point as well - I just suggest that you have to actually take all shots over time when checking zero into account to build a truer picture of the real MPOI and precision, as single small groups in isolation can give you poor information

2- The overwhelming factor to achieving a consistent group on center beyond 400 was not the rifle, or the shooter. It was wind and under the very realistic hunting situation of the valley my range was up, I watched guys who won competitions, get the wind wrong by 180 degrees and a foot off center quite regularly.

It was wind above all else that developed my ethos of no shot on game over 400 except for exceptional circumstances.

I consider the ability to account for the wind as part of shooter proficiency.

Originally Posted by john m

Attachment 251151

can you describe what you're trying to demonstrate with this photo?

[QUOTE=gimp;1579145]

Originally Posted by whanahuia

This and the post of your own you quoted hold a conceit that provides a false conclusion.
[]/quote]

Can you please articulate what this false conclusion is? Just summarise in a sentence so I can be sure I am following your thinking



This is essentially my point as well - I just suggest that you have to actually take all shots over time when checking zero into account to build a truer picture of the real MPOI and precision, as single small groups in isolation can give you poor information





I consider the ability to account for the wind as part of shooter proficiency.

[QUOTE]However the converse is also true - for hunting it's irrelevant to have a ".x MOA rifle" so maybe we should stop claiming that with inadequate data/QUOTE]

Who gets to choose what is inadequate or relevant?

I accept for you it is the case. Id suggest for the majority out there. If what I read holds true. It isn't.

I'm not sure I communicated that point clearly enough - I meant that having a rifle that is genuinely capable of fraction-of-moa accuracy (i.e. genuinely sub-MOA) is demonstrably not necessary for most hunters to be successful in most situations.


Do you feel differently?

If thats where you genuinely stand, then yep I agree. It feels a touch like a Motte and Bailey defence though.

Given the parameters I set in my opinion. I dont feel upset or misled if someone gos off a genuine but small data set for thier hunting. I would never sell a rifle on a sub MOA claim myself though.

Originally Posted by gimp

can you describe what you're trying to demonstrate with this photo?

Looks like an initial 3 shot group. Then an adjustment to zero and then another 3 shot group. Then satisfaction. Then gun back into the safe.

Exactly Tahr, the shooting was done because of a load change.The last group of 3 was done in 2016 and never changed until March 2024 when checked with the new reloads 6 shots and done.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I truly thought the top group would be like the bottom one.

Clearly you shoot better with a full bladder.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Clearly you shoot better with a full bladder.

A sniff of the fog in the air gives me a full bladder Its an age thing.

Worth a look.
https://youtu.be/_h4iAiGYbwg?si=sxF8I3rxWH0Lsp7Z

Originally Posted by john m

It only has a 3 shot mag so a 3 shot group is all I need, it's not a long range rifle.

Excellent
Going by your magazine capacity logic I can use one shot groups to evaluate the accuracy of my rifles

They are all single shot rifles
( joke )