Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
# of Shots per Group and MOA - Results
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mikecr" data-source="post: 1942263" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p>It's <strong>contempt</strong> I guess, as I believe averages(plain or fancy) will not influence hunting shooting capabilities. </p><p>I don't 'shoot at' game. I 'shoot game'. And I wouldn't accept a caused percentage of misses for graphs.</p><p></p><p>For a bit I had a Tubb2000 new from the factory & worked up a load as standard for best hot grouping.</p><p>In good conditions It was reliable for true 1/4moa 5shot groupings @ 600yds -with a fresh foul & sighter warmed (IBS format). That seemed promising, but I had actually bought the gun for varmint hunting.</p><p></p><p>So then I ran a test I do with every gun I intend to hunt with. I shoot a 10min shot rate, because every gun I've tested hates a 10min shot rate. I shoot 200yds, because that happens to be my worst distance and it's far enough for this.</p><p>I shoot 1 cold with immediate followup, 10mins later I do it again,, repeating.</p><p>A good hunting gun and load will hit a 1" dot at this range, shooting with this crummy scenario, any day, off a field rest. A bad hunting gun can't do it, regardless of load, and regardless of it's hot grouping capability.</p><p>While I had not yet worked up a cold bore hunting load for it, I could tell right off the bat by this pictured result -the gun had no varmint hunting potential:</p><p>[ATTACH]203766[/ATTACH]</p><p>I never shot the gun again. Just sat it in the safe for a few years and then sold it for a pretty good profit.</p><p>It was 'competitive' (per it's design, probably still is). But that's all.</p><p>I could have stretched the shot interval and put a huge effort(months) into better cold bore results with this gun, but I didn't feel good enough about that test result to pursue it.</p><p>Looking back, I know I made the right decision there, because that's just really bad...</p><p></p><p>This doesn't seem a success story I'm sure but most hunting guns are not really.</p><p>Not when you cast aside your wallet groupings, and objectively test and accept what you're dealt for real world HUNTING ACCURACY capabilities.</p><p>The reason I bring this long story up is that I just don't see how statistics could change the outcome.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 1942263, member: 1521"] It's [B]contempt[/B] I guess, as I believe averages(plain or fancy) will not influence hunting shooting capabilities. I don't 'shoot at' game. I 'shoot game'. And I wouldn't accept a caused percentage of misses for graphs. For a bit I had a Tubb2000 new from the factory & worked up a load as standard for best hot grouping. In good conditions It was reliable for true 1/4moa 5shot groupings @ 600yds -with a fresh foul & sighter warmed (IBS format). That seemed promising, but I had actually bought the gun for varmint hunting. So then I ran a test I do with every gun I intend to hunt with. I shoot a 10min shot rate, because every gun I've tested hates a 10min shot rate. I shoot 200yds, because that happens to be my worst distance and it's far enough for this. I shoot 1 cold with immediate followup, 10mins later I do it again,, repeating. A good hunting gun and load will hit a 1" dot at this range, shooting with this crummy scenario, any day, off a field rest. A bad hunting gun can't do it, regardless of load, and regardless of it's hot grouping capability. While I had not yet worked up a cold bore hunting load for it, I could tell right off the bat by this pictured result -the gun had no varmint hunting potential: [ATTACH alt="6XCgrpSM2.jpg"]203766[/ATTACH] I never shot the gun again. Just sat it in the safe for a few years and then sold it for a pretty good profit. It was 'competitive' (per it's design, probably still is). But that's all. I could have stretched the shot interval and put a huge effort(months) into better cold bore results with this gun, but I didn't feel good enough about that test result to pursue it. Looking back, I know I made the right decision there, because that's just really bad... This doesn't seem a success story I'm sure but most hunting guns are not really. Not when you cast aside your wallet groupings, and objectively test and accept what you're dealt for real world HUNTING ACCURACY capabilities. The reason I bring this long story up is that I just don't see how statistics could change the outcome. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
# of Shots per Group and MOA - Results
Top