Capable of...When I do my part...?

[entoptics]

Just a little pot stirring. If I had a dime for all the times I've heard people comment on the accuracy of their particular gun/setup, with the statement "capable of" or "when I do my part", I'd be able to buy a nicer rifle...

As an analytical chemist, providing data to researchers across the globe, I can't imagine releasing data with the caveat "our instruments are capable of XXX precision, when I do my part...". Instead, we monitor long term precision and accuracy, using rigorous blinded testing procedures, and that is what is reported. Period.

Each sample we analyze is a unique event, just like each round down range, and the only way to reliably predict the precision and accuracy of the outcome of such an event, is to aggregate the results of many of them and apply statistics.

As an example of how misleading small data sets are, see the following groups. These were fired back to back today, in good conditions, bipod, rear bag, prone in a wheat field (200 yds).

So, it's obvious that my rifle is "capable of" half MOA with this load "when I do my part".

Or is it...

Behind the trigger, I thought I pulled a shot in each group. Not much, but a whisker off center when the recoil started. More importantly, I've shot and recorded a half dozen 4 shot, and a couple of 10 shot groups with this load recently (in similarly good conditions), and they are averaging about 0.8 MOA (which I'm very happy with, btw). Had I been doing load development with only the above sample to reference, I would have sworn that I'd found the "node" or some such.

I have spreadsheets full of data (both for rock analyses and shooting results) that show this type of wishful thinking.

In summary, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and worse for "common sense statistics", sometimes they'll find one twice in a row. The important part though, is to know when you're the squirrel that might need glasses...

 

[Code4]

Being human we are the constant variable.

 

[sea2summit]

I reject your hypothesis

But seriously. I think the biggest variable that affects accuracy with quality rifles is the human in the loop. If we want to truly test the capability of the rifle than strap that bad boy to a sled and lets see what the rifle can do. Then add the human and see what the system can do and the "if I do my part" can then be very easily quantified. All this chest thumping about group number of shot requirements, the size of your rear bag, and the type of bipod is really all about the limitations of the human not the rifle IMHO.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

An accurate rifle gives the shooter confidence. Most like to believe the rifle is better than it is. When you start going to matches you see guys that are really dedicated to their sport and they have to shoot groups on paper. Theres no cherry picking groups to post and no excuses. The fact of the matter is most rifles are not shooting as well as you would be led to believe.

 

[J E Custom]

I would have to say that all quality rifles are better than the shooter 90 % of the time if fed really good ammo.

I competed in different types of matches for most of 50 years and there is no doubt that human error played a major roll in who won the match or shot to the ability of the rifle.

Few if any can shoot there best every time and a well prepared rifle and ammo combination has difficulty doing it, so the only reason for less than perfect has to be the shooter.

Even test guns that are clamped down and cant move will not shoot the same group size every time.

So when I hear someone say that their rifle is capable of 1/4 MOA that simply means that the rifle has done it before, but not very often. Shooting is not an exact science
that a certain group size can be achieved every time. Anyone that says that they can shoot sub 1/10th MOA consistently have a load of that green stuff that is found in a stock yard.

I personally don't care what other people shoot, only what I shoot. And I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see.

Just My opinion

J E CUSTOM

 

[Mikecr]

It's more complicated still..
PRECISION means nothing to ACCURACY, which is defined with every single shot. There are plenty of world record groups that are too poor in accuracy for our hunting. In contrast, there are plenty of ugly groups that represent superior accuracy.

The best 'precision' pictured above, with it's 'trueness' of POI taken to mark(1.13"/200yd), demonstrates mean accuracy of 0.54moa/200yds(not bad). Worst POI in the grouping was a bit further out in moa, least POI was a bit better.

For our hunting shooting capabilities, we should consider worst accuracy.
And of course, whenever declaring the "1/2moa" of accuracy, the range of this capability has to be included for any real meaning.
I'm one of the weird that shoots tighter moa grouping with further distances. My worst distance (nemesis) happens to be at 200yds. So that's the distance I cold bore develop at, and set my capability limit at (in moa).

A practical field example:

This accuracy testing from a gun well capable of performing at winning competitive levels. A Tubb2K with no expense sparred.
[I use 10min cooling per shot here because it challenges bore stability most]

In competitive format, allowed sighters/foulers/warmups to stable, formed brass, I could put 10 in a ragged hole at 200 -easy. I could match pictured 'followup shot' group at 600.
But notice the horrible cold hits...
With this, and I never could solve it,, I sold off the gun to a competitor.
It was nowhere near accurate enough for my hunting.

 

[entoptics]

It's more complicated still..
PRECISION means nothing to ACCURACY, which is defined with every single shot. There are plenty of world record groups that are too poor in accuracy for our hunting. In contrast, there are plenty of ugly groups that represent superior accuracy...

...For our hunting shooting capabilities, we should consider worst accuracy.
And of course, whenever declaring the "1/2moa" of accuracy, the range of this capability has to be included for any real meaning...

Below is last year's hunting practice plotted on a generic deer picture.

Might be hard to see, but there's a green dot at the center of the vitals, and I measured the distance from the center of the target for each shot, and scaled the image to a real deer, and plotted those hit locations. The numbers are kinda hard to see, but they vary from 300 to 573 yds. All shots were recorded over a month's time, and were true cold bore shots, "hurried" (1 minute to unsling, setup, range, and fire), but from an "excellent field position" on a bipod and rear rest (backpack, little shooting bag, binos case, etc).

1) Precision - Hard to quantify since the distance varies from shot to shot, but the group measures just under 10" across, so at max distance of 573 that's 1.6 MOA, and minus the one nasty flier in red, it's 1.2 MOA.

2) Accuracy Pt 1 - For some reason, my overall group was ~1 radius low, despite what I thought was a near perfect zero, and well established ballistic profile for the load. 13/16 shots would also have been clean kills, with 1 marginal and 2 misses (likely fatal, but still not clean).

3) Accuracy Pt 2 - Where I shoot, the wind almost always blows roughly west to east. You can see my group is barely favoring to the right, and all three marginal/misses were far right, so I clearly was underestimating windage in several cases.

I highly recommend this type of exercise. It was good practice, and gave me some eye opening results, which truly helped me make adjustments for better odds against real game in real conditions.

IMO, for most hunters with limited time and/or budget, this sort of thing is far more important than fiddling around trying to shave a 1/4 MOA off of precision by finding a "node" or tweaking action screw torque. In my case, my accuracy was a factor of two worse than my precision

 

[Mikecr]

I applaud your efforts.

You know there are folks who focus on low ES.
There are folks who focus on tight precision. This, often departing from lowest ES, and a balance at distance.
Then there are the folks who focus on accuracy. Cold bore, single shot field accuracy.
Of the four, accuracy takes the most work.

 

[jimbires]

well done Entoptics , very nice .
I haven't shot much this year , life has kept me busy . for the past 5 or 8 years I have done this . I've taken one target for the year , and put it up at 550 yards . every time I went shooting I put my first round in that target . always a cold bore , some times a cold clean bore , and my first shot of the day too . always shot from a hunting position . I call it my " know your limit target "

 

[HARPERC]

When I'm playing at my best I shoot more actual animal paper targets.

 

[entoptics]

2B) I would have to say that all quality rifles are better than the shooter 90 % of the time if fed really good ammo...
2A) Even test guns that are clamped down and cant move will not shoot the same group size every time...1) Shooting is not an exact science that a certain group size can be achieved every time...

I'm a scientist with some extra letters in front of my name on my email signatures to customers, so I feel I can address some of this (in reverse order).

1) There is no such thing as exact science, but reloading/shooting ideally should be pursued with every bit of rigor as biochemistry (as should financial decisions, food choices, socioeconomic policies, etc.). Science is a methodology and philosophy that works better at predicting events than any other in the history of mankind. It is not magic, nor does it claim to be. It does not require "belief" or "faith", and in fact requires the exact opposite. Science requires testable, repeatable, and verifiable results, which result in the ability to reliably predict outcomes for future events. The problem with all that, is that "laymen", and even "experts", often don't have the tools to rigorously evaluate results. BUT...We all should strive to do so, to the best of our abilities...

2A) If test guns or a high end bench rest apparatus can't reproduce 1/10th MOA (or even 1/4 MOA), then it's unlikely a rifle with a human behind it can either. If one looks up bench rest shooting results, they'll note that most of the matches are won with averages in the half MOA neighborhood. If you've really got a "half MOA all day long" gun, then you could probably make living at shooting.

2B) If test rigs can't do it, off the shelf ammo/guns probably can't either. I'd consider myself pretty handy with any gun, and have perhaps 10,000 rounds of experience trying to "aim small, miss small" with magnified optics and good rests. The best I've ever been able to hold and break the trigger, with lead sled type rests and high powered optics, is about 1/8 MOA. Bipod and bags, maybe 1/4 MOA. I've never seen a 1/4 MOA rifle in person. EVER. So I don't think there's many rifles that are "capable of" outshooting a decent shooter.

In summary, after a lot of data crunching from my own results and published match results, I'd maintain that an EXCELLENT shooter, with EXCELLENT equipment would be world class, sponsored, and I-make-a-living-shooting, if they average 1/3 MOA precision, and 1/2 MOA accuracy.

 

[HARPERC]

.....2A) If test guns or a high end bench rest apparatus can't reproduce 1/10th MOA (or even 1/4 MOA), then it's unlikely a rifle with a human behind it can either. If one looks up bench rest shooting results, they'll note that most of the matches are won with averages in the half MOA neighborhood. If you've really got a "half MOA all day long" gun, then you could probably make living at shooting.

2B) If test rigs can't do it, off the shelf ammo/guns probably can't either

I like this!

 

[cross]

I am not an analytical chemist but an engineer with a degree in chemistry. "When I do my part" translates to me as, "I've never gotten an MOA group out of my rifle, or occasionally get an MOA group out of my rifle, but fully believe that it shoots MOA consistently if I were a better marksman."

I hate that phrase the same as you. I have shot many rifles that will shoot MOA or 1/2 MOA groups fairly consistently but only a few of them would I say were MOA or 1/2 MOA rifles. When they say, "When I do my part," I say,"Might be ok or this action and stock might be good for other projects if the price is right."

 

[J E Custom]

I'm a scientist with some extra letters in front of my name on my email signatures to customers, so I feel I can address some of this (in reverse order).

1) There is no such thing as exact science, but reloading/shooting ideally should be pursued with every bit of rigor as biochemistry (as should financial decisions, food choices, socioeconomic policies, etc.). Science is a methodology and philosophy that works better at predicting events than any other in the history of mankind. It is not magic, nor does it claim to be. It does not require "belief" or "faith", and in fact requires the exact opposite. Science requires testable, repeatable, and verifiable results, which result in the ability to reliably predict outcomes for future events. The problem with all that, is that "laymen", and even "experts", often don't have the tools to rigorously evaluate results. BUT...We all should strive to do so, to the best of our abilities...

2A) If test guns or a high end bench rest apparatus can't reproduce 1/10th MOA (or even 1/4 MOA), then it's unlikely a rifle with a human behind it can either. If one looks up bench rest shooting results, they'll note that most of the matches are won with averages in the half MOA neighborhood. If you've really got a "half MOA all day long" gun, then you could probably make living at shooting.

2B) If test rigs can't do it, off the shelf ammo/guns probably can't either. I'd consider myself pretty handy with any gun, and have perhaps 10,000 rounds of experience trying to "aim small, miss small" with magnified optics and good rests. The best I've ever been able to hold and break the trigger, with lead sled type rests and high powered optics, is about 1/8 MOA. Bipod and bags, maybe 1/4 MOA. I've never seen a 1/4 MOA rifle in person. EVER. So I don't think there's many rifles that are "capable of" outshooting a decent shooter.

In summary, after a lot of data crunching from my own results and published match results, I'd maintain that an EXCELLENT shooter, with EXCELLENT equipment would be world class, sponsored, and I-make-a-living-shooting, if they average 1/3 MOA precision, and 1/2 MOA accuracy.

I'm not talking about an average anything. I'm talking about a consistent group with the same thousandths of an inch dimension. In other words if he shoots a .010 group and can duplicate it every time then I would be impressed, But it won't happen.

I have 4 different hunting rifles that have shot under .100 thousandths and many that will shoot under 1/4 moa. Can I do it every time ? absolutely not. I do occasionally get within .010 to .015 thousandths of the best that the rifle has ever done, But rarely have I came much closer. But I keep trying anyway.

Accuracy, precision and consistency all mean the same to me because it is the total package. Without any one, the others suffer. All rifles have their potential and if you are lucky enough to find it, you then have a bench mark for how well a rifle can be expected to do, Not how well it will do every time.

I expect better than a 1/2 MOA when I build a rifle and most of the time I end up with less than 1/4 MOA. I am never happy even with a 1/4 MOA but sometimes it just wont happen. Other times with hard work and experimentation I can drop below 1/10th MOA Because I never settle for "IT"S OK" until I have exhausted every possibility of improving it.

Accuracy one time is not the same as consistent accuracy that is repeatable. time after time. So I still feel that if a shooter can get the best out of his rifle time after time he is blessed. If he shoots one great group he knows what the rifle is capable of if he does his part, even though he may never duplicate that accuracy it should give him confidence that at least the rifle is accurate If he is. And somewhere in between the best and the worst is what he can depend on most of the time. Having the confidence also allows him to make better decisions as to whether he should/could make a shot that other wise with a 1 MOA rifle it would be next to impossible and he would know not to take the shot.

I'm not sure how much accuracy I am capable of because I have never had a .000 group and the best I have ever shot with one of my rifles has Been a .031 Thousandths group with a hunting rifle, And I'm pretty sure I can't do any better than that.

J E CUSTOM