Let’s talk about how accurate a gun is…

[JonB]

Anyways, how accurate is a gun.

I tend to not think in numbers. I think in "hit or miss."
Most of the shooting competitions and Leagues I've participated in over the 1990s and 2000s, have been less about numbers and more about hit and miss. Yes, I have shoot some benchrest, like IR50 (I guess it's called IR50/50 now days), but I didn't enjoy those events as much...could be I didn't do well in them...and they usually seemed more like equipment races than shooting fun...plus I don't like Bench or Rest shooting, I prefer offhand.
.
So if a gun is accurate enough to hit the thing I want it to hit every time, then it's accurate...if not, then it needs fixin. You might ask, what is the size of the thing you want to hit? Well, obviously that varies, sometimes I shoot for the moon

 

[JWFilips]

For me I shoot 10 shot groups

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Lots of opinions here and all with value.

Compiling statistics brings data to the table. How one compiles that data and what one does with that data is something else altogether.

I agree with the OP in part and disagree in part. While I agree the largest group may be more valuable to determine the minimum standard or in simple terms, the worst-case scenario. However, it is just that – a demonstration of the worst-case scenario, not the typical result. The flip side of that is the smallest group may also be an anomaly. These extremes are why we average results to exclude the outliers that skew the results. That brings up the topic of HOW we try to eliminate those statistical outliers.

There are different methods to attempt to get a clear statistical picture of accuracy. Lots of 5 shot groups, fewer groups with a greater number of shots per group, lots of total groups, different methods to average the numbers, etc. In the end, every method has pros and cons, and those pros and cons can be exploited. One thing I will say is that it is impossible to compare apples to oranges, you must be very careful when looking at any statistics.

When it comes to forming a general opinion of the accuracy a particular firearm AND loading are capable of – I’m a “fat part of the Bell Curve” kind of guy. I understand that there will be some exceptionally small groups and some exceptionally large groups but those are aberrations. I want to know where MOST of the shots will LIKELY strike.

How do you find that fat part of the Bell Curve? Well, that brings us full circle to the methods used. Do you shoot multiple groups and toss out the smallest and largest groups and then average the remaining groups? Do you toss out the outliers of all the groups? Do you shoot more rounds per group to average out the extremes? Do you shoot fewer rounds per group but shoot a greater number of total groups to weed out the extremes? The answer is – If there was an accepted practice, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[RBHarter]

The rifle is only as good as it's biggest group .

I have some real stinkers on my hands ;
1927 type 38 ......43" at 50 yd of course I immediately improved on that .
1965 110LH effectively 36" although I did shoot many 1.25 10 shots and .960 5 shots . 4" realistically over 36 weeks 24 10 groups plotted . The first and last 5 rounds of each trip .......
The Model 14 and 760 Remington's are almost useless past making noise .
The 1892s shoot a lovely 8" group at 100 yd it's just 8' high and 18-20' left ......
1894C Marlin this is probably the most accurate consistent rifle I've ever owned . 38/357 .

There are plenty more .
The Marlin is good. The 325 & 340C 2" with whatever falls of the shelf solid 3" rifles

 

[Tomme boy]

Anything over a 5 shot you are testing your ability not the gun. Show me 5 5 shot groups and that is enough to say it can be accurate. I can push myself to 7 shots but I usually get too much eye strain after that and groups ALWAYS open up.

I have a gun that will shoot 6" high on the first shot. But everything else goes into the lower group after that first shot. I have tested this muzzleloader over 100 times and it is always 6" high the first shot. I know where it is when out hunting and know where to aim on the first or third shot. In the past I loaded up 50grs of powder and shot it off on the side of the rod before getting to my hunting area. Then I did not have to worry about that first shot. I stopped doing that as it just made me have to clean the bore more if I did not shoot anything that day.

 

[Mitty38]

I respectfully DISAGREE!

Not all firearms are heavy barreled bench guns.

I have a few VERY LIGHT bolt rifles built for hunting. They will never have a need for 5 consecutive shots!!! With them, If I can make consistent acceptable ONE to THREE shot groups to my POA, Im elated and consider them useful accurate.
Remember these are hunting rifles and with these rifles, I want a COLD bore shot dead on my POA every time. I don't care much for what the 5th shots impact is, cause I simply will never send it.

By 3 shots, the light barrel in some calibers, can be quite warm. Warmer then Im comfortable continuing shooting.

"Your in the know" we all know this. But I read of too many, who are know use this "5 shots or its useless" as a put down, to shooters. Many times because they read of knowledgeable fellows, such as your self, making such blanket statement's.

CW

Thanks CW on that.
My 450 bush master AR15 always puts the first 3 from cold and clean, in at 1moa. But often after that opens up to Two inches. When cold sometimes moa with 5. But always after that 2moa until I walk away from it for a while.
Never considered to mention that.

THats why good enough for hunting here, with a three round limit In Ohio on deer. The first three, before the barrel warms up are always in.

Hmmm....... I wonder if any of those big time competition guys ever Ice their barrel down like hot rodders do their intake between drags????

 

[Snakeoil]

I think that we are taking terms out of context. First, you need to define the objective. That will often determine what kind of testing is appropriate.

Since I am one finger typing on my phone, I give on example. CW hunts with light barrel rifles. The first shot out of a cold barrel is the most important to him. So 3, 5 or 10 shot groups won't help much. But he needs more than 1 shot if he hunts at any distance. He needs to shoot 1 shot out of a cold barrel under different conditions to know how to correct for those conditions. So his group would end up being any number of rounds shot over several days and include notes for the conditions for each shot.

Okay, one more. Working up an accurate load. My rule 3 shot groups minimum per load. 5 is better. Rifle needs to be warmed up and then shot at a relaxed pace. Group size helps pick the load. This would be a ladder test. It tests the load while emulating match pace so rifle warms at a similar rate. When I shoot in a match, I normally fire 5 sighters minimum to warm rifle as I zero the rifle, unless there is a restriction on number of sighters

 

[Jeff H]

I think that we are taking terms out of context.....

BING, BING, BING!!!!

I was going to sit this one out, but CONTEXT came to mind with every post I read.

I do not believe that "accuracy" as being necessarily RELATIVE either. I don't really disagree with anything I've read and I believe what appears to be disagreement is more a matter of the context from which each makes an assertion being different.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Mitty38]

I think this thread has done very well to show, there is no definite answer. To how accurate, is accurate enough.
Too many variables.
But still a good subject to chew on and conversation to learn from.

 

[fiver]

just to throw this in the mix.
i use 7 shot groups.

for my hunting rifles they are accurate enough.
enough to me means i have the confidence in them that if i can hold the cross hairs steady i know the animal is gonna die.
several of them will hold groups well under an inch for 5-7 shots at 100meters.

a couple won't, but i know if i hold properly i still get the same results because they are consistently consistent in their not so 'accurate' results.
'not so accurate' still means any bullet that comes out their barrel will land within 3/4's of an inch of where i'm pointing the muzzle at 100 meters.

 

[BBerguson]

All the replies are great and very interesting, I’m glad I was upset at a certain youtuber and was mad enough to make this post. I completely stopped watching him after a certain video where he lied in the title and figured I’d try him again with another title that interested me. It was another waste of time…. I should have known better but I was bored. There are good gun YouTubers like Buffalo Outdoors and of course our own CW but this guy is a clown show.

Back to topic. I’m not a competitive person and don’t shoot any competition against other shooters. I shoot against myself. It’s enjoyable and interesting to me to cast the bullets and then see the results in shooting. I have expectations but don‘t set goals. Each gun gets its own expectations and if they truly disappoint me, I sell them. And I understand, everyone has their own opinion on accuracy.

Many years ago, like 40 some, I was shooting with some buddies and one of their fathers. The father was hunting in New York in a shotgun slug only area and was “sighting in” his 16 gauge Browning automatic. His first shot took out the bullseye. He was done. Couldn’t get any better than that so he wasn’t shooting anymore. He bragged to everyone about how good his shotgun would shoot. Maybe he was right….

 

[BBerguson]

just to throw this in the mix.
i use 7 shot groups.

for my hunting rifles they are accurate enough.
enough to me means i have the confidence in them that if i can hold the cross hairs steady i know the animal is gonna die.
several of them will hold groups well under an inch for 5-7 shots at 100meters.

a couple won't, but i know if i hold properly i still get the same results because they are consistently consistent in their not so 'accurate' results.
'not so accurate' still means any bullet that comes out their barrel will land within 3/4's of an inch of where i'm pointing the muzzle at 100 meters.

Oh sure, YOU shoot at 100 METERS so you have to be more accurate at the extra distance! LOL! Just busting your azz of course!

I’m going to start with a three shot group, next one will be 8 ( a 3 and a 5), then I’ll go back to 5, This is based on the MPBS principle and from that number I’ll determine if I’m going to load more of the same or try something different.

 

[fiver]

for about the first 15 years i thought the berms were at 100-200yds etc.
i wondered why i had to click up about half my scopes to get back to my sight settings.

i still wouldn't know to this day, but i was shooting over at the silhouette range one afternoon and got to talking with one of the other members and he just happened to mention all of those berms were setup for the NRA sumthin or other which is done in meters and not yards.
it doesn't take too much eye-ballin to look over to the rifle range and see that the berms are all lined up.

 

[MW65]

I have a target I'm proud of that measures .178. I have no idea who did the work, but it's a nicely bedded 788 with a hart bbl in 223ai...

There's something about the 788, that works so well!!!

 

[Tom]

There's something about the 788, that works so well!!!

With the rear lugs, they shouldn't, but they do!

 

[Rick H]

There's something about the 788, that works so well!!!

Short lock time. Rumor has it that one of the reasons Remington discontinued it was it put even their 40xb to shame in regards to lock time. When you couple a stiff action with a moderately heavy barrel and the quickest lock time in production at that time good things happen. I own two of them; a .308W and 6mmRem. Both are left handed models. Neither are for sale.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

 

[Snakeoil]

Rumor has it that one of the reasons Remington discontinued it was it put even their 40xb to shame in regards to lock time.

I don't doubt that it had a better lock time than the 40X, but I really doubt that Remington would discontinue it for that reason. It was introduced as a budget priced rifle to compete with other budget priced rifles. My guess is it cost too much to manufacture and the ROI was just not there. And being an entry level rifle, might not have ever met sale expectation.

A feature of the 788, which I was not aware of until I did a little research (I own one in .22-250) is that the single stack magazine resulted in less material being removed from the receiver between the loading port and the feed port. Hence, the action was more rigid and rigidity normally translates into better accuracy. Contributing to that rigidity was the rear locking lugs, meaning no need to machine locking lug raceways into the forward part of the action. Supposedly, the 788 action is more rigid than any other magazine fed bolt action.

This discussion (coupled with winter boredom) had lit an interest in loading up some jacketed rounds and maybe shoot the rifle in an F-class match. Not sure if the increased MV will counter the negative wind drift risk of the lighter bullet. When I shot 6mmBR at 800 yds, it did great. When I moved back to 900 and 1000, it fell apart quickly. I'll have to talk to my shooting partner. He's the long range HP rifle guru.

 

[popper]

Do you toss out the outliers of all the groups? Depends. If i know I pulled the shot, yup. An example from earlier post, I knew some were ME.
Another example, PB PCd from BO, goin fast. Obvious 'ring' of shots (base cut by gas port?) but a couple 'flyers'. Bad bullet or ME? IMHO, bad base. In above vid, did Eric pull that last due to being excited? Possible. OK, why a ring vs just an offset? Probably FPS variation. I don't trickle loads.

 

[JonB]

those berms were setup for the NRA sumthin or other which is done in meters and not yards.
it doesn't take too much eye-ballin to look over to the rifle range and see that the berms are all lined up.

I think I've told this story before, but I just can't help myself.
6 or 7 years ago, my club decided to start the project for a covered benchrest area on our 100 and 200 yard range. They poured the slab...a real nice slab, in the wrong spot at the wrong angle.
.
The back story:
30 years ago (1996 specifically), a year after I joined the club, I asked about shooting rifles. This conservation club was filled with farmers and shotgun hunters. Few had a rifle or a pistol. They tell me it's OK, and said there is about 100 yds between the cabin/lodge and the berm at the end of the yard that was cut out of the 10 acre woods. Back then, they had a sporting clays setup through the woods...and the Yard was used for regular trap shooting.
.
So one day in 1997, I take it upon myself to measure from the Berm to the cabin. Years earlier they had a cement side walks poured for trap shooters. At the end of each walkway (toward the berm) was 105 yards away from the Berm. Perfect, I thought. I'll setup a permanent target backer 5 yds in front of the berm. They are still there today, 30 yrs later. I acquired a couple used shooting benches and stained/sealed them and put them on the trap shooter sidewalk...at the one close end, because the berm ran at a angle to the cabin, but the sidewalk was square with the cabin, so the one far sidewalk was more like 103 yards and the close one was 100.
.
Fast forward to about 2019, Our club has many new members who shoot pistol and Rifle....somehow these shooters got my buddy (a fellow club member) to ramrod this whole covered benchrest area project. He schedules the concrete slab. He was there when they built the forms, but he didn't measure the yard. He placed the slab several yards in front of the trap side walks and poured it square to the cabin. It got poured and they did an amazing job of concrete work.
.
A few weeks later, I go out there to check it out with my friend. I tell him, why did you pour it here? It's too close to the Berm and it's not square with the berm. He's a perfectionist, and is immediately mad at himself. I am not so much of a perfectionist, and figure, we got a nice slab for our new 95 yard range (that number was just my best guess). He is adamant we gotta fix this, in case we ever have a NRA sanctioned shoot. That's when I said, well, then we should make in 100 meters then. He got even more made when I told him 100 meters was longer than 100 yards, cuz he isn't much of a math/metric guy. I try to talk him down and just say, no one will ever know that our 95 yd range isn't 100 yds or 100 meters. He was having none of that.
.
So, next weekend, we go back out there with tape measures. We disregard my 30 yr old target backer posts that are still standing strong and we measure from the dirt berm edge...and even cheated a little bit back into the berm, because the posts can go a little bit up the berm. The Berm is 93 yards at the far end of the slab and 88 yards at the close end. So, he says we can't have that. He scribbles out plans to add a wedge shaped slab in front of the square slab (which must just drive his perfectionist azz crazy, to not have a square slab). I suggested (in gest) to pour two wedge slabs, front and back, to made the whole thing square...I swear his head was about to explode, because it would have diagonal separation lines. Then he says, we gotta move that berm...I'm guessing that berm in 40+ yards of soil, with a big hole behind it, where the dirt came from. Well, I said, if you move that berm back about 25 yards, we won't have a berm anymore, we'll have a filled hole. Gee, he got mad.
.
That is where the story ended. Nothing more on this project has been done. I've been shooting from the old sidewalks and over that slab for the last six years...it sure is a nice surface to put my chrono, LOL. Anyone else that shoots out there, moves the benches onto the new square slab, so they are unknowingly shooting at 85ish yards to my target backers and they are likely wondering why the benches always need to be moved from the old sidewalks, LOL.