Thread: Finally getting set up

It's taken a bit longer than I ever intended, but I finally got a shooting area set up on the new farm. Its one of the big things Ive missed, but it took a bit of consideration in finding an area with the distances I wanted, and that was safe as well as not going to get damaged by cattle when not in use.
Anyway a few days back I was dismantling an old kitchen bench and draws that had been turned into a garage tool bench, and I realised it had a two piece box metal frame. A light lit up in my brain as I realised it would make an awesome benchrest.

I finished stripping it and applied some anti rust spray, then went to look for a suitable top and seat. In a back shed was a couple of pieces of inch thick ply, and a tin of waterproofing paint. Bingo!
My luck was in as I didn't need to cut or anything. Both bits slotted into place like they were made for it.





A kids swing set and trampoline got salvaged from the farm dump, and now I had frames for my gongs and can put them out from 200 too 500 yards.

As the 300 yard distance will be where I do most of my testing, I set up the swing there and hung a gong. The idea being it has enough room for multiple targets and I an hang a sheet or board behind if I need to find where bullets are going.

My brother has just picked up a Browning Maral, Nordic in 308, and he wanted to sight it in with 165 superformance. So we decided to test the range last night. I also wanted to check my rifle as Ive done some tough hunts since last sight in, and also the last group I shot at 100 was an incredible 7mm centre to centre.
I wanted to see if I could replicate that at longer range.

Mikes Maral shot really well, except that it doesn't have enough elevation adjust ment and is shooting low at 100. Its ok for now in that the has a BDC type reticle and can use it out to 300, and he did fire one shot for a very pleasant confirmation at 300.

You will see his shot below my group on the plate. There was a steady left to right breeze, so Im not too upset at both guns hitting slightly right of centre.

Anyway I was stoked that my rifle performs as well at 300, as it does at 100, with a 3 shot group of .75 inch centre to centre.





Yep I do know the criticism of 3 shot groups, but this rifle has never shot any 3 shot group over .75 MOA at any distance, So I'm confident that this tells me all I really need to know.

I was using the first stadia on the G4i Drop reticle on my GPO 1.5-9 x 44, and this is shooting a touch high at 300. But that's fine for how I use the rifle and I know that with my maximum shooting range of 400 on game, I have all bases coved with just two hold points.

later on Ill do some testing at 500 just out of interest sake.

That’s three dead deer

Go hunt

Pretty different from the local boys who are all set if they can hit a beer box at 100m

But also no excuses once you've validated everything for longer range

Originally Posted by akaroa1

Pretty different from the local boys who are all set if they can hit a beer box at 100m

But also no excuses once you've validated everything for longer range

Of course If you saw my recent post in hunting reports, no level of accuracy helps if you don't actually have a cartridge in the chamber.

The 3-shot vs bigger group thing is a good bar room argument over a pint. Yeah, bigger groups provide more stats and are generally more reliable but for the average bloke in NZ and in reality a group is useless for ethical hunting purposes.

We need to know where the first shot goes, regardless of bore temp, state of cleanliness, weather conditions, lighting and ammo temp. If your rifle takes two shots to settle into perfect 3/4" groups bang on all day, that's great but if those first two are sheet of A4 down and right at 100m (and I had one rifle that did this) - then that's likely a miss at 300m and it's not much use having to fire two possible misses to get the 3rd and 1st of your 3/4" group on target. It's also not much use having a 10-round mag with a rifle that only spits two to point of aim then shifts to a repeatable POI much higher up and left...

Yep, I agree. I had a rifle that would put first shot always well away from the rest. It was a PIA and didn't last long.

I get that if you are chasing the absolute in rifle performance, you might need more, but it's also worth knowing that the first 3 rounds in the mag will be consistent for hunting. And even if after that, groups started to enlarge, Will you really need those shots often? is it going to make you sell the rifle?

In my case, even if a 10 round group opened up too 3x the mean 3 shot group, then Im still dealing with a MOA capable rifle. Id be happy. And Im dealing with a very slim profile barrel, that I never intend to heat up too much.

Thats a good point W. A lot of guys have sought out 10 shot mags (just because) but to be fair, the first time i lay my back down and shot off it i had an issue. Mag dug into the rest
If you actually need more than 3 you could always get that tactical stick on 2xshot thingo you see on tac shooters rifles. Can we blame that invention on the 3gun shooters?

Sika only give you one shot

Great to have an easy place to go and test.
What is the rifle/cartridge you are using?

Barrett Feildcraft in .270 win

Yeah, What ive really missed over the last couple of years is having somewhere I can go and just build confidence in my shooting. I don't need to fire a lot of shots, but I do need to know that When I place the reticle on an animal, it's going to die. Since moving south Ive had a couple of longer shots, where due to lack of time on the range, I was just unsure of myself. It might just be 3 or 5 shots a month, at the far end of the ranges I wish to shoot. But I know in my head that if I can hit my targets where I want on the range, then Im ok on game.

Nice set up and great shooting Craig! I agree with you on 3 shot groups. I quit shooting 5 shot groups years ago..partly to conserve reloading components when working up loads. For a hunter the difference is insignificant!. Most of the hunting I do comes down to a quick opportunity and a single shot!

I can see why you like that .270!

Living the dream - a range at home.



An observation, based on a rough eyeball. An estimated 1MOA target size in the red circle. This isn't having a go in any way - but it is quite a cool example of the irrelevance of sub-moa precision (real or perceived) for normal hunting. You clearly are proficient, comfortable and successful with this setup. A rifle with a ~3moa cone of fire, centred on the point of aim, would give the same real results. What do you think?

Cautiously yes.

I say cautiously because I wish to be able to shoot a further 100 yards constantly, and at 400 it wouldn't. But yes at anything up too 300.

I also think there is a lot to be gained from having confidence in your rifle and set up, and a 3moa rifle would not give me that confidence even when the group constantly centred.

I have a rifle in the cupboard that I spent quite some money on that seemed to do that. 2moa Average at 100. But it seems to settle and the longer distances are generally smaller moa. Yet it was/is just frustrating. Yet I don't recall ever missing anything because of that.

I think it would be worth agreeing on a definition of a 3 MOA rifle so we're speaking the same language.


These are the ways that I can identify in which you can define precision, or the combination of precision and accuracy - is a 3MOA rifle (or rifle and shooter system).....

1. A rifle that produces an average group size (of however many data points) of 3 MOA
2. A rifle that has produced a best group size ever of 3MOA
3. A rifle that has produced a worst group size ever of 3MOA
4. A rifle that has a calculated hit probability, due to dispersion of rifle/shooter system, of 100% or near enough, on a 3MOA target (using mean radius x 4.16 correction)
5. A rifle/shooter system that has demonstrated 100% hits (from however many data points) on a real 3MOA target

Then to add additional complexity - at which range? I'd say I have about a 1.25 or maybe 1 moa rifle by definitions 4&5 with my .223 - at 100m. At 1000m........ not so much



I think definition 4 is the most clearly linked to real-world predictions, because it takes into account the position of each measured shot relative to point of aim (or mean point of impact), rather than just the distance between 2 of them - as long as you have collected enough data to do it.


We can take this yarn to another thread if you prefer ...

No, Im happy for conversation to go wherever it wishes.

Your option 4 is the best, I know. But realistically very few people will use it. Here what I tend to think. Most people would use number 3 id say.