Gun magazines testing for accuracy. Larger round counts.

Reynolds, I would tend to agree with you (and Bart) on the three shot groups if I had a new rifle I was working with. But once I've had a rifle for a time and have shot it again and again, and I keep getting these nice tight 3 shot groups - some of them at 1/4 inch and some at 3/4 inch and occasionally (like yesterday) when3 went into one hole, I really don't feel the need to shoot more than that.

My Sako 270 will generally shot into 3/4 inch. The Tikka 260 will do a bit better than that, though I hesitate to say it'll do 1/2 groups with me shooting. The 220 will most certainly shoot into about 1/2 inch if I'm having a good day. The 223, oddly enough, seems to vary a bit more than the others. Maybe that's just me, which is likely.

As for the number of shots in a group, I think most of us are comfortable with the thought that if a rifle shot a nice 3 shot group, then it's a good shooter. Similarly, if it shot an ugly 3 shot group, it's less interesting, and I think it's more indicative of barrel quality or rifle accuracy. But...that's just me.
 
Rey,
I've explained why you see what you in the mags & why you don't see what you don't see.

There are many things I'd like to see in life myself, but reality tends to get in the way at times.
Denis
 
603, I will give you a prime example of why I do not like 3 shot groups. I am working with a rifle right now that today shot a 1/2" 3 shot group(100 yd). The only problem with that is the shot immediately before that three shot group wast 2 1/4" away from the center of that 3 shot group. That rifle has extreme flyers, but I could show some pretty three shot groups it shot. I have pretty much narrowed it down to a bedding issue.
 
Reynolds, I understand. I was just making the point that the rifles I've had for a decent period of time have proven to me that they'll shoot. If I want to work up a new load with a new bullet, I know the rifle will do what it's supposed to do and a small 3 shot group is indicative, if not final proof, that the load is probably a good one worth further testing. A really ugly 3 shot group is suggesting to me that maybe I should try a bit more or less powder, because that isn't likely to be the happy load combo that I want.

If I was a long range or benchrest shooter, I'd be doing the 10 shot groups. I'm a varmint, deer, and paper target hunter and I like my rifles to shoot accurately but I don't need the nth degree in statistics to tell me if I can hit that coyote at 400 yards. And if I'm missing, can you just imagine how far away that coyote is by the time I get around to the 10th shot? I've missed a few, and I gotta tell you (if you don't already know) that a coyote has a high speed overdrive gear that's really something to see.

As for DPris and his rifle testing, it's probably mostly for guys like me that will hunt and punch paper. We don't need 10 shot groups. A serious bench shooter isn't likely to buy anything 'off the rack' anyway. He'll have rifle pieces that he'll have assembled just the way he wants them, and he'll do 10 shot groups.

And good luck with that finicky shooter you are working with. I get easily frustrated when I can't figure out what causes the odd shooting patterns. My Ruger Hawkeye gave me fits for quite a while, till I finally figured out that the problem was the new scope. All is well now.
 
603, I'm not "hung up" on 10-shot groups. I typically shoot 20 in a group to see what accuracy level I can count on at least 90% of the time. 3-shot ones are about 30% confidence level which means about 1/3rd of the time, groups will be about the size of that 3-shot group shot. The others will be different.

If one doesn't understand that, they're welcome to shoot whatever they want to satisfy whatever's important to them. If you shoot three or four few-shot groups and they're not within 10% of the same size, neither one's representative of what can be counted on all the time.

This is somewhat related to "boxing" a scope shooting four few-shot groups, one into each corner of a square on the target to check a scope's adjustments. If the biggest few-shot group's 1/2 MOA, then the scope adjustment's repeatability can only be measured to about twice that amount.

If you've ever watched a dozen or so folks shoot a rifle resting atop something on a bench top holding it against their shoulder and observed at least a 1 MOA spread in their 5-shot group sizes ranging from 3/4 to 2 MOA, and the rifle shoots 1/4 MOA from proper accuracy fixtures with the same ammo, you may get the message the results are telling you.
 
Last edited:
I apply the same principle to rifle as I do my bow. With my bow, I'll shoot a ten shot group over the course of a few days. "cold shoulder" and "cold bore" first shot accuracy is paramount. Shooting group after group is all well and good to check rifle and ammo setup, dial in technique and impress your buddies, the first shot in the woods is the only one that matters.
 
Bart, I was just kidding you a bit. I understand your position on shooting groups and don't disagree with anything you've said. I just shoot those 3 shot groups from rifles that already have loads I like. And if I'm just in the mood for more shooting, I'll go to 5 shot groups, but rarely do 10 shot groups. I'm just thinking (right or wrong) that most of us hunters and informal paper punchers don't feel the need for 10 shot groups. An excellent 3 shot group is still an excellent 3 shot group and if I can do that well consistently I'm happy. And I will occasionally brag about it and I do have a few of those targets on the cork board in my workshop, though most of my bragging groups are 5 shot groups. That one-holer I shot yesterday, which probably is about 0.125 or less center to center, is still hanging on the target stand. I'd have put it on the cork board if it had been a 5 shot group. The group, even at 3 shots, told me what I wanted to know. The rifle and scope are dead-on and ready for pigs, if I can find a few.

For the record, I do pay attention to your rifle/reloading statements, since I respect your knowledge (and F Guffy's too). I don't remember anything you've said that I considered wrong. Your feeling on group size is correct concerning statistic evaluation of the group, but many of us are still going to be happy with nice 3 or 5 shot groups. And we know what you are going to say about it. And that's Ok.
 
Y'know, another factor that some are not considering in statements like "I always do this" or I always do that" is that you're talking about YOUR OWN RIFLES.

You're talking about guns YOU OWN.

You're talking about GUNS YOU WILL BE KEEPING.

In other words, you're willing to put many hours and a fair amount of ammo money into extensive range testing to get the data you think you need on a rifle you expect to be using for a long time.

Totally different with me.
I do buy the occasional test sample, if I severely like it & it fills a niche for me, but 99% go back to their makers when I'm done.

Coupled with the production costs involved in a given article that I already mentioned, and the return-on-investment ratio (the check I get as gross income vs what I had to spend in time, resources, and money I had to put into that article), I'm just not going to waste all that time, resources, and money in extensively and intensively shooting hundreds of rounds over several sessions to create more data points on a gun I'm not going to keep.

If you've seen any of my print stuff, you may have noticed a target photo showing a best-of-session test group.
That's required by the company I sell to.
You may also have noticed the group shown on each is frequently not centered in the black bull.

That's the result of me not taking the time to precisely zero a gun/sight/scope any further than necessary to get a group centered well enough to put all holes on that one target to fit in a photo.

When I may be shooting two or four different guns at a typical session, I'm not going to take the time to perfectly zero each one, with each load, on a gun I'm not going to be keeping.

For accuracy testing, I don't need that, and it'd input more time into the project, skewing the return-on-investment ratio in the wrong direction, just to get nicely centered pretty target photos.

I'm not the only writer who does this, and readers have been known to complain about off-center groups in photos by saying the gun or scope or writer must be off if they can't get the combo to shoot dead-center groups.

Besides the additional time involved, it (again) uses up more ammo to get everything perfectly zeroed for perfectly-zeroed pictures.
Putting everything into the tightest groups I & the gun can get is the goal, not making pretty photos.

But, back to the "your gun" & the returnable test sample issue- the 3-shot group methodology works well enough to get a basic idea of how a test sample did for me, and works well enough for most readers to look at the results & get an idea of what a similar gun may do for them, as a general overview, in a "best case" (or best group) situation.

You have the luxury of spending as much time & money on YOUR OWN GUN as you want to.
On a loaner I won't be keeping, I don't.

As I repeatedly say- the system has its flaws & its limitations.
The mass-media writer who expects to make a profit on his or her work simply has to accept those limitations, and so does the mass-media reader.

The reader almost invariably forgets there's a profit/loss equation that plays a fundamental role in gunwriting, as well as space restrictions beyond the writer's control.

We are not here to be Consumer Reports Magazine.
We are not here to do ALL of the time & resource-consuming in-depth lab work some are demanding.
We are not here to make up your mind for you on whether to buy a new gun or not.

We ARE here to provide what info we can, within the framework we have to operate in.
Most of us try to give you the most info we can for your money, but the expectations of many readers are simply unrealistic.

"It's an elephant gun, why didn't you shoot an elephant with it for us?"
Africa's expensive, dude.

"It's a combat gun, why didn't you shoot somebody with it (or at least take it to a two-week carbine school)?"
That'd cost over five times what I'd be paid for the article, guy.

"It's a comp gun, why didn't you take it to Steel Challenge?"
Let's see.....several days to get there, stay there, shoot there, return home from there; entry fees, motel expenses, ammunition, travel expenses, food expenses, all not covered by the company I'd be selling the article to. Gee, Economics 101 says the basic key to financial success in a business model is PROFIT, not LOSS, so what's wrong with this picture?

"It's a caliber that's hard on barrels, why didn't you test it with several thousand rounds till the throat burned out and the rifling disappeared, making notes of deteriorating accuracy every hundred shots along the way to plot out a graph for us, and then re-barrel & repeat 9 more times to give us statistically valid extrapolations so we can know exactly what to expect if we buy one?"
Uhh......right.

"I only have xxx dollars to spend on my next gun, and I want you to shoot 400 different loads through Model X, run 10,000 rounds down the bore, compare accuracy with 10 different scopes, shoot it out to 1000 yards, tell me which round is the best one to use on everything from squirrels to buffalo, and make up my mind for me on whether I want to buy that rifle or not."
Nope, you're on your own there, bucko.

And so on. :)

You want to pay me to do all that, PM me & I'll work out a price package.
Cashier's check for 50% up front, balance due on completion.
You expect to be paid a realistic sum for your work, I have a right to the same expectation for mine.
Denis
 
603, I will give you a prime example of why I do not like 3 shot groups. I am working with a rifle right now that today shot a 1/2" 3 shot group(100 yd). The only problem with that is the shot immediately before that three shot group wast 2 1/4" away from the center of that 3 shot group.
Click to expand...
In that case I'd say you're not showing a "3 shot group"
You're showing PART of a 4 shot group

Generally "3 shot group" means three shots fired in sequence from a cool or cold barrel to the same aiming point

It doesn't mean fire more and then isolate the closest 3
 
Problem with Mo's 30-shot group mentioned above, incidentally, was that it was actually 3 10-shot groups on the same target, ALL OVER the target, which made it difficult to see at a glance what he was doing.

With Mo & his 10/22, we're having him fire 5-shot 50-yard groups while he adjusts his sights & standardizes his shooting.
This is a totally different process from a gun review article.

He's learning to shoot, learning to be consistent, learning to reduce variables, and learning to set up a gun he's keeping.
An on-going process, in other words; not a gun-of-the-week deal like it is for most writers, most of the time.
Denis
 
Besides the entire thread being too boring to read all the way through for me (and 95% of the gunmag audience), my only comment regarding your 90 3-shot groups would be "So?"

If you can't get the idea behind what I've been explaining in a mass-market gunmag scenario by now, I doubt you ever will.

Spend your money on guns & ammo, not on Guns & Ammo, and get what you want for yourself out of your own shooting endeavors.
Denis
 
I've well understood the scenarios of gun/shooting/marksmanship/whatever magazine mass marketing for over half a century. It's not changed in the entire last century. Your "So" remark tells me more about your magazine positioning than all else, but I don't think it's bad. It's not the same as Winchester putting in their marketing words that fluting a barrel makes it stiffer. I doubt they'll ever retract that physical impossibility.
 
Last edited:
Bric,
How did you do that?
Zero rounds, actually.
I arrived at my gunsmith to pick it up, checked it over, noted the loose lockup, got a second opinion from my gunsmith after running a rod, gun came home with me & was returned unfired after arrangements were made for shipping.
Click to expand...


Ah, the chance of that happening with Taurus is much higher than S&W or Ruger.
 
A person I have shot with on occasion is a writer. He is regularly publicized in several big magazines. He had a rifle mechanically fail and do him significant bodily harm. He still gave it a rave review and did not mention the failure or the major injury in his article. At that point, I pretty much quit reading the magazines because it became obvious to me that many, maybe not all, but many writers are bought and paid for by the manufacturers.
Click to expand...


That's really messed up. My guess is it's one of the more recognizable magazines.

I quit reading the magazines, except for one that doesn't accept advertising.
 
I would like to see writers shooting 20 shot groups from the "sub moa" rifles and posting those results in the magazines along side the paid ads.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great idea. Anyone hear of anyone doing informal tests/experiments like this?
 
Better yet, shoot 10-shot groups from a conventional rifle clamped into a free recoiling machine rest. Groups would be smaller than anyone could produce with the ammo used hand holding the shouldered rifle resting on bags atop a bench.

That's the best accuracy test of the rifle and ammunition because no human accuracy degrading variables are in the system.
 
Last edited:
I think it's all been said except that it DOES indeed have something to do with advertisers, at least in part.

They want ALL rifles to look at least "pretty good", even if the worst of the bunch, because they want ALL rifle-makers to buy ad space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top