Why I ignore shot groups

There are rifle shooters who can sight in their very accurate rifle standing up on their hind legs without a sling can fire one shot at the target, call the shot, make a sight correction to call and they've got a zero within 1/4 to 1/3 MOA of what is really is. Yes, one shot is all they need. And they don't even have to hit dead center on the bullseye target they're using to sight in with.

These folks also know that the zeros used in the four common field positions (standing, kneeling, sitting and prone, with or without a sling) will not be the same the get when shooting that rifle as it rests atop something on a bench held against their shoudler. Typical differences in zeros is 1 MOA. between bench and field positions. There may be a 1/2 MOA difference across each of the field positions, too.

Nobody holds a rifle exactly the same way in all five of these positions.
 
Carlos Hathcock had a very different requirement than a hunter of big game.

The post wasn't about Carlos Hathcock doing his job as a sniper, it was a post about how Carlos Hathcock helped someone else zero his rifle, one shot at a time, over multiple distances, in multiple conditions, until that shooter knew his rifle was accurate and could make any shot Gus cared to take.

All without using "shot groups" to determine anything. Which, if you go back to the original post, seems to be what we are talking about.

I would rather be an accurate shot with poor precision (hit where I aim), than be a high precision shooter (tight groups) with poor accuracy. Most benchresters (except benchrest for score which is an exacting game) are the other way around, group size matters more than placement in that world.

Competitions that demand both precision and accuracy (F Class, Palma, High Power) produce the best shooters I've ever had the privelege to serve and be mentored by.

Jimro
 
Once again,I'll go back to the context of kraigwy's original post.:

A CMP Garand clinic.

Fundamentals of marksmanship and familiarization with an as issue service rifle.

Put a dozen CMP Garands in a rack. Pick one.For the purpose of the clinic,it does not matter which one you pick.

It does not matter if it groups 2 in or 4 in at 100 yds.If it is your rifle and you keep using it you can know if you are doing things right,or not,and log progress.

Sure,developing accuracy in equiptment and ammunition is worthwhile and rewarding.

If you are focused on the equiptment edge of a 1 moa rifle/ammo at a CMP Garand clinic,well,it nice to have,but if the targets prone are 7 moa,it may be time to ignore the group size of the equiptment and work on breathing,position,trigger control,etc.

I do not read the OP to imply that all efforts on small groups are a waste of time.
 
I agree that Kraigwy's point was that shot grousps made from the bench are relatively meaningless when it comes to actually shooting a rifle. Put any rifle in a rest or off of sandbags and it will shoot more precisely than any human can from a field position.

But if you put a Tubb2000 in my hand with ammunition rolled by David Tubb himself, I'd be lucky to add more points to my High Power scores (still struggling to make consistent Expert scores across the course, some matches I'll shoot great for three legs than bomb the third, it is challenging). Then again, if you give David Tubb my service rifle, I have no doubts he could still shoot High Master scores with it (even using my 1 MOA handloads).

What is truly maddening is that the Army has seen fit to cut short my competition season several years in a row now (I'm hoping for a sudden and unexpected outbreak of peace so I can get on with my shooting hobby) /rant.

Jimro
 
I agree that Kraigwy's point was that shot grousps made from the bench are relatively meaningless when it comes to actually shooting a rifle.

Different strokes for different folks. As a re-loader, I care less of where the first shot goes than the size of the group. (often I will put it into the ground just to foul the barrel.) I am more interested in seeing what I can do with load development for a individual rifle to find the "sweet spot" of each rifle.

No I do not do competition and no longer hunt, at 70 I would rather sit in front of the fireplace with a hot cup of coffee than in some blind or tree at 5 degrees Fahrenheit waiting for some unsuspecting animal to walk into my view. No longer have the need to prove myself

Testing one's skill as a hunter is rewarding, but after 50 years of doing so, I can think of many other things I would rather do. And custom making ammo for my favorite rifles is what I like the most.

For some, hunting is the top of the latter, for some competing against others, for me I guess it is getting out on a nice warm day, sitting next to a babbling stream under a nice shade tree with my line in the water taking a snooze. If any fish should dare bother me by biting my bait, I will eat it for revenge.(LOL) No, I throw then back.

I have enough problem just carrying all my gear and ammo to a bench to shoot (it keeps getting heavier and heavier each year). But, field shooting, I will leave that to the youngin's. Like they say "youth is wasted on the young".

If I was to meet my maker tomorrow, sitting at the bench with a 200 yard bullseye from my favorite 243 Winchester, that would make me a happy camper.

Jim
 
A friend of mine used to be a junior rifle target shooter. I tried it once, but didn't like it, thinking it was boring and too restrictive.

That friend was an excellent shot, but extremely slow...to the point that when we hunted varmints, several got away without his firing a shot. That bugged me, but being a good friend, I never said anything to him about his shooting slowness that affected all field positions.

I don't recall missing any more varmints than him, but got more opportunities because of my quicker, but still very accurate shooting style, especially offhand.
 
Some here feel that the first shot from a match barrel is often in the group center. I agree that it happens with certain centerfire rifles, but NOT with rimfire ones.

Rimfire benchrest shooters recognize that the first few shots from a cold (dirty or clean) barrel doesn't go to the same POI as the rest on a target. Several .22LR target/benchrest rifles I've owned will shoot the first shot about an inch high. The second shot will be much closer, but still not there.

Some rifles take 5-6 shots before being where they should be at 50 yards. My newest rifle will do it in 3-4 rounds. We're talking about very good, heavy bench guns with 36 to 45X scopes, capable of putting 25 shots in less than 1/8" group in a tube range...the variable being the ammo only.

The difference in impact is the wax on bullets IMHO. It takes a few shots to get the barrel warm enough to make the wax coating on the bore to a uniform condition, probably reducing pressure/velocity. Waiting out wind conditions with a round in the chamber will cause a variation also, so some folks will eject it and chamber another, or just shoot it, away from the scoring targets.

These variations aren't not serious enough to cause problems for the plinker or most hunters, but if shooting groups, a few warm-up shots should be fired on a sighter.
 
I'm a deer hunter if you haven't guessed by my handle on here. One inch groups at 100 yards has served me well when I deer hunt. Always lived in the city and have never really had a place to go shoot in the wild and choose not to shoot to much on my lease. For those that do I'm envious. So when I go to the range I go for two main reasons, check any new loads I've worked up or check to make sure my rifle is sighted in. I do go a few times when hunting season starts getting close to get any jitters out of the way and work a little on breathing and trigger pull. If my gun shoots 1 MOA it always performs well enough for me. I don't take shots I'm not pretty certain I can make. I do believe a lot of guys go to the range and based on bench shooting over estimate their own ability. I can say I'm always amazed at how guys behave when hunting season is a week or two away and their behavior at the range. I can't tell you how many times I've seen guys that have different kinds of ammo expecting all to perform the same and then when they don't think something is wrong with the rifle...pretty funny...except when you realize they are going out and hunting with it and risk wounding animals...then it's not too funny.
 
Quote:
What a rifle does from the bench is totally un-related to what it does in field or match conditions

That's wrong. What the rifle does from the bench is exactly what the rifle can do in the field or in a match. What the shooter does from the bench is unrelated to what the shooter does in a match.

You're absolutely right, OkieCruffler. And of course group size and/or placement matters. It doesn't necessarily tell you everything (what does?) but it can give you an idea as to how far or close your point of aim is with the point of impact in terms of sight adjustment; it can give you some clue(s) if your firearm needs attention and it can certainly reveal flaws on the part of the shooter in terms of his aiming and shooting ability (sight alignment; trigger squeeze; stance; breath control; follow-through, etc.) that simply hitting or missing a gong will never do.

There are people who rationalize their poor performances at the bench or at a match by arguing in "real" situations, their supposed innate shooting skills that aren't reflected in competition or at the bench, will somehow be manifested in time to save the day when the venue is more "practical". My favorite examples are shooters who can't hit clay birds with any regularity in the games of trap and skeet but will tell you that they can hit game birds just fine "in the field', where everything becomes more "practical". My experiences with these folks are that if they can't hit a clay bird in practice or competition they usually miss the birds wearing feathers too.
 
Last edited:
There are people who rationalize their poor performances at the bench or at a match by arguing in "real" situations, their supposed innate shooting skills that aren't reflected in competition or at the bench, will somehow be manifested in time to save the day when the venue is more "practical". My favorite examples are shooters who can't hit clay birds with any regularity in the games of trap and skeet but will tell you that they can hit game birds just fine "in the field', where everything becomes more "practical". My experiences with these folks are that if they can't hit a clay bird in practice or competition they usually miss the birds wearing feathers too.

That's what I like about competition. My score is my own, and it is up to me to improve it. What my gear can do from the bench or a rest is only there to remind me that I can't shoot as tight as the rifle can at this point.

Jimro
 
What a rifle does from the bench is not necessarily what it WILL do under field conditions with a human shooting. However, groups from a bench do in fact show what the rifle is capable of. That is very important.

I wonder if some of those who say otherwise are the same ones who say, "I don't do so well on the range shooting at targets, but when I shoot at game I am an excellent shot.":) Who believes the truth of that except the speaker who has deceived himself?

Jerry
 
I think that some folks tend to flinch at the range, but don't when shooting at game. It's understandable because bench shooting magnifies recoil and it's for several shots, like getting punched several times in the same place.

Flinch is curable to some extent, but it often requires having someone load some dummy shells, so the shooter doesn't know whether the rifle will fire, or not.
 
[I think that some folks tend to flinch at the range, but don't when shooting at game. It's understandable because bench shooting magnifies recoil and it's for several shots, like getting punched several times in the same place.]

I doubt it. A flinch is more mental than physical. I think if you develop a flinch on the bench it will carry over to the field. That is my experience. The problem is that they do not know they flinch in the field.
I found that the best way for me was to shoot fast several times from standing. A flinch shows immediately. I also learned that the most powerful rifle I could shoot without flinching when shooting such was a 30-06. Harder kicking guns always resulted in a "push" of the gun.

Shooting from the sitting position when you can really squeeze the trigger so that you don't know when the rifle will fire prevents a flinch.
But of if you know when the rifle is going to fire as in taking a quick running shot you will flinch if one has developed.
Jerry
 
A flinch is more mental than physical.

I agree with this statement. I rarely "feel" recoil when shooting at game. Well, most of the time I don't. I confess to sometimes "perceiving" recoil when touching off 3 1/2" twelve gauge loads at high-flying honkers. Especially if I miss...:o
 
JerryM, only when rifles are fired in total free recoil untouched by humans except for a fingertip on their trigger does their inheirant accuracy happen. Rifles hand held against ones shoulder as they lay atop something on a bench top have all the human variables's degrading their accuracy. Nobody shoots hand held rifles as accurate as they do clamped in an unrestricted machine rest.
 
{JerryM, only when rifles are fired in total free recoil untouched by humans except for a fingertip on their trigger does their inheirant accuracy happen. Rifles hand held against ones shoulder as they lay atop something on a bench top have all the human variables's degrading their accuracy. Nobody shoots hand held rifles as accurate as they do clamped in an unrestricted machine rest.}

I know that, but in the real world of the average hunter sighting in and shooting it makes little difference. Groups fired over a rest or bench do give an indication of the rifle's accuracy.

So the fact that people are not perfect in the shooting is unimportant to assessing the accuracy and suitability for hunting.

I have never had a machine rest, and have not missed one. When my rifle shoot MOA or 1.5 MOA they have done the job in the field.
So why should I care if I don't have a machine rest? I have always been interested in hunting rifles and have not had accuracy problems with my shooting over a bench.

Jerry
 
I have never had a machine rest, and have not missed one. When my rifle shoot MOA or 1.5 MOA they have done the job in the field.
So why should I care if I don't have a machine rest? I have always been interested in hunting rifles and have not had accuracy problems with my shooting over a bench.

I agree. You have come to grips with your "system" and the variables in it.

If you are happy, then that is what counts. You can tweak the variables in your system to see if there is improvement or not. I have never owned or used any kind of machine rest either. I am interested in how my rifle performs for me. I suspect many who post here feel the same way.
 
I know that (machine rest's use in testing accuracy), but in the real world of the average hunter sighting in and shooting it makes little difference. Groups fired over a rest or bench do give an indication of the rifle's accuracy. So the fact that people are not perfect in the shooting is unimportant to assessing the accuracy and suitability for hunting.
You might think somewhat otherwise if you've ever watched a dozen people shoot the same rifle holding it against their shoulders as its fore end rested atop something on a bench top as the sit on a stool beside it. Then see their 100-yard 10-shot test groups range from 3/4 inch to almost 2 inches across all of them. With a rifle and ammo that shoots about 1/4 inch from a machine rest at 100 yards.

Groups fired over a rest or bench do give an indication of the rifle's accuracy plus the inaccuracies of the person shooting it; they add up together in one direction as well as cancel each other out in the other direction and it's nye impossible sometimes to separate the two.
 
Hi Bart,
[You might think somewhat otherwise if you've ever watched a dozen people shoot the same rifle holding it against their shoulders as its fore end rested atop something on a bench top as the sit on a stool beside it.]

But I don't care about 10 or 9 other people. I am only interested in my rifle fired by me.

I realize those who are Distinguished Marksmen, and like what they do have other ideas. However, I care not how they operate. I was, when I was younger and in good health, a hunter. The trophy I was interested was the animal on my wall or in a photo. Also, in the plate.:D

We have different interest and standards of marksmanship. The finest points of marksmanship and ultimate accuracy of rifles are not of consequence to me. I practiced a lot and could shoot 2 MOA from a sitting position. I never had problems with ability to take game out to 500 yds. I think 550 on an antelope was the longest I took a game animal. In those days we did not have range finders or use shooting sticks.:D Prone with a rest of a day pack or whatever was even better if it could be done.

Also, shooting on the side of a mountain with adrenalin pumping is a lot different from anything on the range or bench. That does not negate testing rifles and loads over a bench to see if the combination is accurate enough for the intended use.

Thanks,
Jerry
 
Back
Top