I actually speaks of accuracy in what I consider correct terms and as I think I have posted before, speak of what most people use the term accuracy to more correctly mean which is repetitive or consistent precision i.e. repeatably to a group with a tight POI for a given group; I do not call it accuracy per say. Maybe I mis spoke or presented it poorly. Certainly possible. But I definitely see the two as different things. To me if you really talk about accuracy you are bringing into play fixed POA to POI which most do not factor as they will adjust there scope zero and then again for another group and so on. Not overlay multiple targets to see what the real spread is.
The 3s which I hope people take a .3 moa (I now do everything in mils and metric as it works way more logically for my mind as I was taught to range in mils.) That range number was not 600 yd but 500yd (you are correct I should have supported that grouping size with a range as that is critical) as that was the longest range I had to work with within short driving distance when I was shooting it regularly at the end. But I have shot it many times on range 5 @ Quantico but now after moving its a 2 hr drive. The rifle setup as a combo with me driving has held 3/4 moa @ 1K. That was using a Vx-III 1" tube 14x int eh orginal QD sako mount. Best group 1k group with that combo was 5 in 6.27" I still have the official signed target I can try to dig up is needed. My guess is it has more mechanical precision than this but wind and mirage is something I felt others shooters I had seen had more skill at. We never had or used weather stations and wind meters like we now have. It was all by visual flags and feel watching the boil waves etc.
Frankly when most people speak of their guns being .5 moa or .2 moa IMO is not accurate with what I use for a standard of the term accuracy of a specific firearm with a given load. To me to call a gun a .5 moa (@ a given range and load) would mean:
taking what was the actual POA for each target without adjustment to rezero each time you shot groups; so one zero
Enough targets to have maybe 30 shots or more total between the collection of groups.
Used the POA as the center point and then measured the extreme spread when all the targets were overlaid.
That measurement would be the accuracy of that rifle with a given round and distance.
I do not think shooting a mere 3 shots that may well all be kissing tells you much of anything. I have seen plenty of groups of 10 that were say 1 moa that had clusters of 3 inside that group that were way smaller. Would someone really call a rifle a .5 moa rifle that had a 10 shot 1 moa group that within it even if they were consecutive shots clustered to half that size??? Of course not.
This is a hunting site and most here are trying to actually hit something not just have tiny clusters of holes that maybe have all sorts of varying distances from where the POA actually was from one group to the next if the zero was not adjusted.
So give me say 30 shots from multiple groups minimum with the POA centered and then measure the extreme spread and that is the accuracy of the rifle at least for my purposes.
Other than as "part" load development I see little statistically value in three shots groups. Personally I have always tried to use 10 shot groups.
My point of my last post was quite obvious or so I thought vs trying to read into it. That way more accuracy and precision is possible with the barrel manf process used by SAKO then what most people would ever associate with those processes. It tend to be the process and treatments most consider to add the most stress (HF) and dimensional variations in chamber and bore (CL). I doubt very much most of the shooters here would be too disappointed in, while very high end, an all factory gun using a CHF CL barrel that can hold .3 moa @ 500 yards. Mine is also not some freak as I have seen numerous reports of similar accuracy from the same rifle system.
Frankly I think this thread has just become a place for people to split hairs and to argue for the sake of arguing. People can always find reasons or ways to show negatives in anything. Its the ones that find solutions that are of value.
This could have been a really cool and informative thread if say instead people brought info of the real science and details of each of the various barrel making processes along with all the various steps to handle the short comings. OR maybe posted some real scientifically solid research and testing which I am fairly sure does exist on the various effects etc of the metallurgic effects and how and whys of it all.
Seriously what has anyone learned from this thread:
Button rifles are bad for hunting???? Seriously
Cryo is and is not a stress relieving process? No wait its actually a .......
Krieger cryos in house all their barrels..no wait it use to say that now its gone so do they yes no maybe so?????
Lothar hammer forges no they button or do they maybe do both???
Instead how about what are the tightest tolerances or range the various machines used for button, cut, hammer forge, can hold to for various dimensions within one barrel and from barrel to barrel. Take for instances, only as an example, it seems most agree cut rifling can hold more accurate twist rates tolerances from desired to actual than button rifling. Why is that so? What about the button process prevents them from making a a barrel with a rifling angle of 10:1 if that is what they want. Why might it come out 9.8 or 10.2: 1 what is the actual tolerance of that process ? Is it a user controlled issue or product of the machinery or process? ETC etc so on an so forth.
For what its worth which is not much I think the most dimensionally accurate ( tightest tolerances) within one barrel and from barrel to barrel comes from the machines used by Bartlein. Can someone make a barrel that could produce smaller groups? Sure maybe but from one barrel to the next all other things being equal?? Doubt it. Again the all other things being equal is critical.
That's the only time my rifles reliably shoot in the 1s, 2s, or 3s.
