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

entoptics said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you look up short range Benchrest results you will see most are won with a high .1 to low .2 moa aggregate. For a Benchrest rifle to be competitive it does in fact need to be a .1 moa rifle. Long range Benchrest will have a lot more "conditions" in the group sizes, but they are still .1 moa rifles in ideal conditions.
 
entoptics said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. In 2A you say if a gun is 1/10 MOA capable it's probably a 1/4 MOA gun but in 2B you say there's not many rifles capable of outshooting a decent shooter. Can you expound?

Don't worry about offending me, I know I'm not a 1/4 MOA shooter:(
 
entoptics said:
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).

View attachment 148043 View attachment 148044

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...
Click to expand...

Great post!
LOL, a vocation in the analytical industry radically effects the way one looks at a testing process. Now retired, I spent 45 years in the Analytical Instrument Industry. Perhaps a subtle difference is that it sounds like you provided test results to clients while I produced test equipment for sale to analytical labs. Much like yourself, I also apply a strong analytical component in my shooting. Supplying instruments to analytical labs, these instruments ranged from simple "black boxes" that could be run by a non-technical person, to highly sophisticated instruments that required a high level of education, knowledge, and technical expertise to produce results even though the instrument was thoroughly tested to specification. As much as we would try to isolate the actual performance specification of the instrument(which was required to be tested to the extreme), the end results were quite often influenced by the individual running the instrument. Human interpretation was a critical component to achieving results. IMO, there is a parallel to the sophisticated rifles we use for precision LR hunting/shooting. Humans are very capable of not always "doing their part". Fatigue, loss of concentration/distraction, interpretation of variables, etc. are all factors that have to be taken into account. Regardless of the rifles actual performance, results can be influenced by these factors. IMO, the key is to understand as much as possible about the "entire" system(Rifle+Human) and close the gap. IMO.
 
entoptics said:
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).

View attachment 148043 View attachment 148044

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...
Click to expand...

Great post!
LOL, a vocation in the analytical industry radically effects the way one looks at a testing process. Now retired, I spent 45 years in the Analytical Instrument Industry. Perhaps a subtle difference is that it sounds like you provided test results to clients while I produced test equipment for sale to analytical labs. Much like yourself, I also apply a strong analytical component in my shooting. Supplying instruments to analytical labs, these instruments ranged from simple "black boxes" that could be run by a non-technical person, to highly sophisticated instruments that required a high level of education, knowledge, and technical expertise to produce results even though the instrument was thoroughly tested to specification. As much as we would try to isolate the actual performance specification of the instrument(which was required to be tested to the extreme), the end results were quite often influenced by the individual running the instrument. Human interpretation was a critical component to achieving results. IMO, there is a parallel to the sophisticated rifles we use for precision LR hunting/shooting. Humans(including myself) are quite capable of not always "doing their part". Fatigue, loss of concentration/distraction, interpretation of variables, etc. are all factors that have to be taken into account. Regardless of the rifles actual performance, results can be influenced by these factors. IMO, the key is to understand as much as possible about the "entire" system(Rifle+Human) and close the gap. IMO.
 
Just for giggles! Obviously y'all need to get a 6.5 creedmoor and you'll see what pure accuracy is " when you do your part " .... Hahaha have a nice day
 
wv270wsm said:
Just for giggles! Obviously y'all need to get a 6.5 creedmoor and you'll see what pure accuracy is " when you do your part " .... Hahaha have a nice day
Click to expand...

Found the 260 owner, sorry for your loss.
 
I remember reading an article a few years back by a guy with a laboratory day job. He stated something very similar to the topic at had. That most guns do not shoot as they are advertised to and we often blame the shooter as a way to make our gun seem better than it is. That article talked of shooting 20-50 round groups instead of three round groups. He showed the phenomenon by stacking multiple three round groups on top of each other. Within the 25, or so, three round groups there were several that were smaller than .5 moa. Several that fell over 1 moa and the majority were in between. The groups could be charted as a bell curve with the 80th percentile being the more accurate representation of the rifles potential. The wishful thinker would automatically claim the smallest group as the rifles true potential and blame the other 24 groups on "not doing his part." The reality is that precision is always about averages and the true potential is the average, not what lies on the extreme ends of the bell curve. The most useful segment of that article was the writer's determination that what matters most is group orientation not group size. Namely, the average distance from center of each shot means more to the long range hunter than average group size. I've shot lots of tiny groups and in the midst of the firing string thought that I pulled one, but when I looked at the Target the group was fantastic. I've Alice shot unimpressive groups knowing that I broke every shot clean. The only way that I can account for that is in the statistics. It is and always will be about averages.
 
J E Custom said:
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
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up ;)

If I do my part= its a hard thing to repeat because-

I set my position just like when I shot my last best shot o_O

I squeezed the trigger with the same amount or squeeze :p

I read the wind exactly like I did last time but it must have gusted :confused:

Anyway as this is a long range 'hunting' forum I would suggest that doing your part would equate to a clean humane kill, not a squeaky clean .1 group :p

Anyway if you don't want to worry about doing 'your part' then build a rail gun, the only human interaction is closing the bolt & pulling the trigger.

That sounds exciting :rolleyes: ​
 
jimbires said:
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 "
Click to expand...

THAT is a good idea.
 
aushunter1 said:
Pretty much sums it up ;)

If I do my part= its a hard thing to repeat because-

I set my position just like when I shot my last best shot o_O

I squeezed the trigger with the same amount or squeeze :p

I read the wind exactly like I did last time but it must have gusted :confused:

Anyway as this is a long range 'hunting' forum I would suggest that doing your part would equate to a clean humane kill, not a squeaky clean .1 group :p

Anyway if you don't want to worry about doing 'your part' then build a rail gun, the only human interaction is closing the bolt & pulling the trigger.

That sounds exciting :rolleyes: ​
Click to expand...

I can remember only one hunt where I "did my part." It was a woodchuck hunt, when I was in my early 30's, and my buddy and I shot an even dozen 'chucks in one morning walk around the edges of a big alfalfa field in western PA. In about three hours' time, we did this with 12 shots. Both of us shot perfectly. All hits were center-of-chest shots. That was the first - and last - time I've even done that, and it was also the only time I can remember hunting anything under absolutely perfect conditions. There was absolutely no wind, it was neither too hot nor too cool, and the grass was just high enough that the animals weren't nervous about standing around feeding while were took our time to get the perfect sight picture and trigger squeeze.

During the rest of my lifetime full of hunting trips, for animals large and small, I've dealt with varying shooting conditions, varying ranges, different rifles, scopes, triggers, etc., and in the end I have probably brought home more animals than I should have. I've also made some stupid errors and missed some easy shots, and watched "the big one" run away unscathed while I wondered how I had screwed up the shot. Did the bullet hit a twig ? ( That's a commonly-used excuse, because it's hard to dis-prove.) Was there a gust that I didn't feel just as the trigger broke ? Who knows ……...

Of all the things that have been mentioned in this thread, I haven't seen the word "LUCK" in any of them. Maybe I overlooked it, but I'll mention it right here. Luck is when all the stars are in alignment, like my long-ago woodchuck hunt. This is a variable that cannot be overlooked. You can't plan for it; you can't control it. But it's there - and it's variable. The only thing I know about luck, as it pertains to shooting, is that an extra cup of coffee before you go out there will definitely NOT improve your luck.
 
starship trooper doing my part.gif

"When I do my part", that statement just makes me cringe!
When I do my part, the car goes left or right, fast or slow.
 
J E Custom said:
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.

And I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see.
Click to expand...

I think this quote above sums it up.

I have had many customers tell stories of dads 30-06 using old factory ammunition shooting 1/4 inch at 300 yards (not 1/4 MOA but 1/4 inch) and with the words "All day long" added on as well. If I wasn't in the customer service business I would reply more honestly that if they have a rig like that they would have won a lot of competitions at the local rod and gun clubs but then, they may not always be able to "do their part" - "all day long".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
What do you think an H&R Handi Rifle is capable of?!?
Replies
12
Views
16K
7 loader
7
G
When do u clean? Time vs. # of rounds
Replies
7
Views
2K
jro45
J
D
Sako A7...is capable of LR shooting?
Replies
2
Views
4K
300WSMMAD
3
H
First part of my build arrived last week
Replies
9
Views
2K
HoytFlinger
H
C
What should I do with my savage 270
Replies
10
Views
3K
woods
woods

Recent Posts

Top