Another (time proven) way to measure accuracy

[Therealld]

Way back in the day, long range shooting was popular, mostly using military type rifles with iron sights from prone position. Targets were bullseye type, and shooting was often done at ranges from 600 to 1000 yards. Generally these matches were sortof political in nature, with different nations wanting to demonstrate the prowess of their riflemen.

So, a system was sometimes used in long range group shooting evaluation, where each shot was measured by spotters behind a big berm by pulling the target down to their level and scoring by pasting a marker over the bullet hole and later measuring the distance from then hole to the bull’s center. The measuring was done with a string, and marks or knots in the string could consecutively identify each shot fired on the target. Shooting partners with binoculars could see the pasted mark or a larger colored disk raised up over then pasted hole to tell the shooter where he hit.

At the end of each shooters turn, the overall length of the string could identify the top shooter! Sometime even to this day a shooter may say “nice string”.

This measuring of the mean radius distance from aimpoint is truly a fine way to check accuracy, and a form of it is still applied when testing ammo or guns for the military.

Somethin like that is what I recall



LD

 

[AirNGasman]

As one (of few remaining) that values not only group sizes, but their relation to aim point, I can get (back) aboard such 'prehistoric' accuracy protocols LD. Something like this?-

Or this?-

True confessions, I find some 'accuracy tests' impossible to discern by anyone but the shooter, even after explanations, qualifiers, disclaimers, and excuses quite laughable. I'd say "hilarious", were I not such a Humanitarian. 

Hey... when trying to impress, excuses don't!

 

[Therealld]

Not sure of your meaning, but the numbers you show clearly don’t relate to the “mean radius” system I described, so you meant you don’t buy it I guess.



LD

 

[AirNGasman]

Nope LD, I do buy it.

The bottom photo should be self-explantory. Admittedly, the top photo requires more thought/calculation(s). All those shots impacted within an inch of POA at 100 yards. If that ain't impressive by your protocols, I concede; and admit ignorance of the subject.

And apologize.

 

[Therealld]

So as i see it, the system required measurement of each individual shot fired at the bully, then a tally (string measurement) of the distances from bull center to each shot’s center, than an average of the total shot string distance (from the bull center). Thus a tight cluster of say, five in more or less the same hole around an inch from the bulls center would have a longer string than a loose group of say 3/4 inch thats well-centered of the bull.

Of course the system works best when shots are spaced far enough from each other to measure well, such as at long range or offhand at at least middling distances.



LD

 

[Therealld]

Nope LD, I do buy it.

The bottom photo should be self-explantory. Admittedly, the top photo requires more thought/calculation(s). All those shots impacted within an inch of POA at 100 yards. If that ain't impressive by your protocols, I concede; and admit ignorance of the subject.

And apologize.

If each shot was exactly and inch from the bull cl, you would have a 15” string, while a 1.5” dia evenly distributed group well centered would be maybe half that.



LD