Too much crosswind to have an accurate conclusion today. Probably regroup in morning if wind is down.
From my previous experience the rimfire is more consistent and accurate.
Upvote 0
N/A The elusive airgun that AVERAGES 100 yard sub moa groups.
- Thread starter Franklink
- Start date
From my previous experience the rimfire is more consistent and accurate.
Although that is how most EBR shooters operate....it's certainly not how most benchrest shooters operate. On average...I probably take less than 10 on a typical match card. If Im practicing or tuning a gun I might take 100. It's usually not advantageous to break stride once you've got going unless things change dramatically or you are really sucking. You might take a few sanity check shots if that happens. If your gun isn't working it won't matter how many sighters you take, your score will still be poor.
Shooting groups of 5 that don't particularly matter where they land is not nearly as challenging as placing them in a predetermined spot. If score benchrest matches were simply groups of 5 wherever they landed...you probably wouldn't need too many sighters...but then it also wouldn't be called score benchrest, it would be called group benchrest. They both exist....but It's two different things altogether.
Mike
Upvote 0
I agree Mike, accuracy AND precision.
I was trying to make the point that sighters taken during counted shots take away from the whole. And yes that's coming from a pesting/field target mindset.
Even for only 10 shots taken during 25 counted shots (35 shots total) I'm less impressed with the "score" and/or the results. And that's for the same reason some (me included) dismiss cherry picked groups. If a guy shoots 35 shots but only counts 25 of them, only 71.3% of them are being counted. The mirror of that is that 28.7% arent included in the score. The math isn't as egregious as most cherry picking, but the concept is the same. Non-counting shots were used to improve the counted shots. Our Dutch contributor was calling them "testers." Whether we use the terminology of sighter or tester, the use of non-counting shots is a way to inflate the results.
I understand that this concept of sighters or testers is rather entrenched in benchrest, and that's just the way it is. I'm not against sighters for benchrest, that's just part of the game.
I'm much more impressed by a gun that (in the case of the EBR target) can put 95% of 25 CONSECUTIVE shots into the 9 or 10 ring than a gun that can put 95% of the best 25/35 shots into the same 9/10 ring. It just goes back to the basis for me starting this thread, an airgun that AVERAGES MOA or better at 100 yards is incredibly rare.
And if we're using the true definition of "average," we don't get to omit the sighter shots.
I was trying to make the point that sighters taken during counted shots take away from the whole. And yes that's coming from a pesting/field target mindset.
Even for only 10 shots taken during 25 counted shots (35 shots total) I'm less impressed with the "score" and/or the results. And that's for the same reason some (me included) dismiss cherry picked groups. If a guy shoots 35 shots but only counts 25 of them, only 71.3% of them are being counted. The mirror of that is that 28.7% arent included in the score. The math isn't as egregious as most cherry picking, but the concept is the same. Non-counting shots were used to improve the counted shots. Our Dutch contributor was calling them "testers." Whether we use the terminology of sighter or tester, the use of non-counting shots is a way to inflate the results.
I understand that this concept of sighters or testers is rather entrenched in benchrest, and that's just the way it is. I'm not against sighters for benchrest, that's just part of the game.
I'm much more impressed by a gun that (in the case of the EBR target) can put 95% of 25 CONSECUTIVE shots into the 9 or 10 ring than a gun that can put 95% of the best 25/35 shots into the same 9/10 ring. It just goes back to the basis for me starting this thread, an airgun that AVERAGES MOA or better at 100 yards is incredibly rare.
And if we're using the true definition of "average," we don't get to omit the sighter shots.
Upvote 0
Yep, definitely correct. Groups are interesting, but shooting for score at 100y separates the men from the boys.
Placing multiple 5-shot groups in competitive sized bulls consistently, demonstrates shooter skill and gun’s capability.
Groups are good for testing, score shooting determines skill and accuracy.
Placing multiple 5-shot groups in competitive sized bulls consistently, demonstrates shooter skill and gun’s capability.
Groups are good for testing, score shooting determines skill and accuracy.
Upvote 0
Some really good thoughts from both of you guys! You.’re making my head hurt.
But, any air gun that can ‘average’ MOA at 100y, while shooting for score, is definitely very very rare. I know a heck of a lot of high end RF shooters who would like to shoot this well. Heck, not even the CF guys can do this at my range.
The key word is ‘average MOA’ not occasional or a cherry picked 5-shot MOA.
Upvote 0
Cole...you are automatically assuming that the sighters must all be bad shots. That's rarely the case.
Here is 3 of my cards from a match. Note that all the sighters are 10s.
None of them are "bad" shots. Matter of fact, most shooters would love to be able to trade a sighter for a record bull most times.
Mike
Here is 3 of my cards from a match. Note that all the sighters are 10s.
None of them are "bad" shots. Matter of fact, most shooters would love to be able to trade a sighter for a record bull most times.
Mike
Upvote 0
Mike, I'm not meaning for this to be an argument, although the back and forth might feel that way. In contrast, we're arguing the same point I've seen you make elsewhere.
You've made the point more than once about how more cards need to be shot at EBR-like events to better determine a winner. I didn't go digging just now but from what I remember your stance on that centers around consistency and statistical relevance. And that's what I'm saying here with the comparison between sighter-aided scores and non sighter-aided scores. Only including some of the shots taken (non-sighters) skews the data to appear better than reality, the same way only using one EBR card to determine the winner has a skewing effect. Yes, the EBR winner shot the best score for that one round, but the results are more statistically sound (more "impressive") when they're the best shooter over multiple cards.
I understand that not all sighters are bad shots, but the cards you shared in the last post further make my point. That was shot by the best benchrest shooter, using the best equipment, and is probably an even further outlier in that Id guess that most of even YOUR cards don't have all the sighters as 10s.
Ie. you're sharing one of the better examples where the sighters are all tens.
You've made the point more than once about how more cards need to be shot at EBR-like events to better determine a winner. I didn't go digging just now but from what I remember your stance on that centers around consistency and statistical relevance. And that's what I'm saying here with the comparison between sighter-aided scores and non sighter-aided scores. Only including some of the shots taken (non-sighters) skews the data to appear better than reality, the same way only using one EBR card to determine the winner has a skewing effect. Yes, the EBR winner shot the best score for that one round, but the results are more statistically sound (more "impressive") when they're the best shooter over multiple cards.
I understand that not all sighters are bad shots, but the cards you shared in the last post further make my point. That was shot by the best benchrest shooter, using the best equipment, and is probably an even further outlier in that Id guess that most of even YOUR cards don't have all the sighters as 10s.
Ie. you're sharing one of the better examples where the sighters are all tens.
Upvote 0
Actually was sharing the only 3 cards that I've saved from a full match....and I didn't save them. Jeffrey saved all of the match cards when he was here and forgot to take them with him when he left.
The point value of the sighters is also based on how a person chooses to use them. In 25m BR, I always aim dead center on a sighter and let it blow. This is so I don't have to remember where I held and the condition present when I took it. I don't do that in N50 because it can easily blow out of the sighter area in heavier wind. Instead, I aim where I believe I should to make the shot...most of the time.
Anyway, I see your point...but I suppose one could go a step further and propose that no sight in time be allowed prior to ft matches.
I don't think you're being argumentative. I, also, don't think your comparison concerning the allowance of sighters in score benchrest is like shooting one card matches.
The nice thing about proper BR matches is that the best and most prepared shooters win every time. If sighters were disallowed ...the same guys would still win, but they would prepare differently.
The game is the game.
Mike
The point value of the sighters is also based on how a person chooses to use them. In 25m BR, I always aim dead center on a sighter and let it blow. This is so I don't have to remember where I held and the condition present when I took it. I don't do that in N50 because it can easily blow out of the sighter area in heavier wind. Instead, I aim where I believe I should to make the shot...most of the time.
Anyway, I see your point...but I suppose one could go a step further and propose that no sight in time be allowed prior to ft matches.
I don't think you're being argumentative. I, also, don't think your comparison concerning the allowance of sighters in score benchrest is like shooting one card matches.
The nice thing about proper BR matches is that the best and most prepared shooters win every time. If sighters were disallowed ...the same guys would still win, but they would prepare differently.
The game is the game.
Mike
Upvote 0
I was trying to point out the statistical relevance thought but let me try to present it better....
Omitting flyers is like if a drug company could choose to include only the desired reactions from the patients in the drug trial to get their chemical structure (drug) approved for use, while conveniently ignoring everything else. Ie only "counting" or only considering some of the information. Skewed data.
Only looking at one card to determine a winner means the determination of the winner is not as robust as it would be if the score was the aggregate of 3 or 4, or 5 cards. Same as only looking at "counted" shots to assess the accuracy and precision of a gun isn't as statistically robust as if ALL shots are considered.
In other words, only scoring some of the shots isn't a measure of the true accuracy of a gun. And it only hurts the data more whenever we consider that the unscored shots help improve the scored shots.
My presenting of this idea of a gun that averages MOA wasn't ever meant to be a benchrest competition. My "gun that averages MOA" idea has some tight parameters, mostly that they're only 5 shot groups, and that they're consecutive shots, and for full disclosure, that the wind is less than about 20mph. I was mostly wanting it to be a simple comparison of what the gun/projectile is capable of, not necessarily what a benchrest shooter can achieve with unlimited sighters and wind flags and etc etc.
Upvote 0
Here's 50 consecutive shots at 100y in 1-4 mph wind. The vertical of all shots is well within 1 moa. The horizontal of all but the 2 touching the box is about 1.15 moa. Is the gun an moa gun...I'd say so. Is the shooter a 1 moa wind reader at 100y for 50 consecutive shots....no, he's not.
22 caliber MRDs. Thomas HPX
22 caliber MRDs. Thomas HPX
Upvote 0
Ha ha!
Yeah but if you are shooting 50 consecutive shots for kicks and not score, I’m assuming you are aiming at the same POA for all 50 to show this group. In other words, just to see how the gun will group at 100.
Or, were you adjusting your holds for wind? If so, why?
Upvote 0
As usual, pretty dang impressive. Thanks for humoring me.
Not that any are horrible, but did the shots that aren't in the 1/2moa circle in the middle of the bull feel like they were all wind, or do you think some of them were just the nature of MRDs @ 100yarda?
Wind is looking good and I'm home today so going to do some shooting later today. I might try a large size group like that, versus 5x5 or 5x6.
Upvote 0
Small bore slugs are usually swagged, not casted. Their precision may be even higher than the ones from CNC.
Upvote 0
My experienced is that when the gun is tuned right....the vertical is about the best you can do with the gun if you made perfect wind decisions. In this case the max vertical was probably .800". So pretty much everything beyond that in width was wind error on my part.
Mike
Upvote 0
Here is 2 5x5s with 39g slugs at 100.
I shot the lower most set left to right. I was not happy with the vertical and adjusted the tuner .010" out. Took 5 more shots on the far right, readjusted the scope and then shot the top set right to left. The vertical was much better on the 2nd try. If there were actually slug matches at 100y that I was interested in....I would spend even more time on the tune and could probably get it a little better.
Mike
I shot the lower most set left to right. I was not happy with the vertical and adjusted the tuner .010" out. Took 5 more shots on the far right, readjusted the scope and then shot the top set right to left. The vertical was much better on the 2nd try. If there were actually slug matches at 100y that I was interested in....I would spend even more time on the tune and could probably get it a little better.
Mike
Upvote 0
You do realize, that this is your 2nd or 3rd ‘2500’ score for the “slugs in the rings” challenge, that you started in February 2022.
Now, I need to take out my match Annie 1907 .22 LR and try and get me a 2nd 2500. But, mine is a RF and yours is a pellet gun.
Very annoying…
Tom
Upvote 0