What a difference a rest makes (in point-of-impact)!

AR6 rests POI.1617384831.jpg


AFTER sighting-in for hunting from two different brush blinds, groups show the Hunting Master shoots to various points-of impact from different rested shooting positions. As much as 1-1/2" difference at 30 yards. The red dots are the aiming-points.



I absolutely love shooting tiny groups from a sand-bagged bench-rest with my Duk iL Arms AR6 Hunting Master PCP revolver, however I've noticed she shoots to different points-of-impact from the hunting rests of my ground blinds; no doubt due to firing from positions/angles slightly different than that of the sand-bagged shooting bench on my back porch. Before adding the steel muzzle brake/weight for competition work, that difference seemed to be about 1" at 25-35 yards. I'd hoped the muzzle weight might reduce or minimize the POI differences from solid bench-rest to hunting rested positions, but NOOO! Matter of fact it seems to have increased the difference in points-of-impact. Careful testing snd (re)sighting-in yesterday for the transition back to hunting (from competition) has given me some quantification of the differences (with the muzzle weight installed).

The photo below shows groups fired after dialing almost 20 clicks down in elevation and about half as many clicks windage to attain the zero I was seeking from my two brush blinds (one at a feeder, and another at a water-trough). And though there is still a little POI difference between the two blinds, that difference is only about 3/4". However the POI difference between my solid back-porch bench-rest and the relatively-shaky tripod rest at my feeder is a full 1-1/2"; hence the need to re-zero the scope before hunting with this rig. Which brings us to a few pertinent points and conclusions drawn from this quantification.

1) A couple things might be contributors to such wide differences in POI with the powerful Hunting Master PCP revolver that might not be as extreme with other pistols, but in my experiences nevertheless exist with all pistols- A) The relatively heavy external hammer and hammer-blow on this relatively light and very powerful air pistol shifts the gun more before the pellets exits the barrel than does a lighter, inline hammer-strike on a heavier and/or less powerful air pistol. B) The powerful muzzle-blast of the AR6 also contributes to the POI/rest-position situation.

2) Though this experience confirms the POI change relating to differences in rests, gun and shooter angles pretty graphically and quantifiably, in my many decades of pistol-shooting experience the same situation exists with any pistol of any kind; though more obviously with scoped pistols. Few shooters can shoot tight enough pistol groups at long enough distances with iron sights to notice this, much less quantify it.

3) In my opinion this helps explain many, MANY misses and/or less-than-perfect hunting shots. Not just for other hunters, but Your's Truly as well! 

4) That it took so many clicks elevation and windage to re-zero at 25-35 yards reflects the fact that each 1/4 MOA click adjusts the point of impact less than 1/10" at 30 yards. This explains why many shooters adjust too few clicks when sighting-in to move the POI as far as they think it will, especially at relatively short ranges.
 
I've also shot pistols for many, many decades and I don't agree fully with your generalized conclusion. Does it happen ever? Probably yes. Does it happen with "any pistol of any kind"? Absolutely not. I own something just under 20 pistols including air pistols, rimfire, and centerfire. I have few if any that exhibit this behavior to any appreciable degree but I believe it would always be more noticeable with air pistols. The pellet is in the barrel for a relatively long time and any movement of the pistol could effect POI, and accuracy.

That said, I do try to rest my pistol consistently one way when shooting rested and do so in a manner that I can try to duplicate in field shooting. That seems like common sense to me. Many take issue with shooting a pistol rested for any reason but I do so when possible. I am always more accurate rested, even when the rest position varies slightly from time to time. I believe for the pistol pictured that the severe slope on the lower front area may be responsible for the change in point of impact you note when rested, especially in light of the amount of momentum you attribute to the mechanism.
 
Good observations bandg, and I take no exception to your disagreements. Especially the part about the slope of the bottom of the AR6 fore-end; I'm pretty sure you're right about that.

That stated, I would be interested in your results under very controlled shooting conditions with the most accurate scoped pistol you own, shooting groups with the pistol at varying heights in relation to the shooter seated at one height. Flat fore-end or not, I believe you might see POI elevation differences. 
 
Me to,but for the most part pellet PCP pistols are rather awkward to shoot compared to powdered burners.Take issue of a rested pistol,heck ya use it,you'll properly get tired before your pistol does.LOL,that depends,the goal is to hit the target....488 rounds of .45 without stopping,two handed stance,could not do it using one hand,it gets expensive,pellets are so much cheaper and at times just as much fun,truthfully in some ways pellet guns are harder to shot as accurate....what I mean is this,with my rested PCP pistol I want 1/2" or smaller groups at 25yds,with my .45 shooting freehand at the same 25 yds.2" is good....then again as "they" say ," it's all relative"..
 
Good observations bandg, and I take no exception to your disagreements. Especially the part about the slope of the bottom of the AR6 fore-end; I'm pretty sure you're right about that.

That stated, I would be interested in your results under very controlled shooting conditions with the most accurate scoped pistol you own, shooting groups with the pistol at varying heights in relation to the shooter seated at one height. Flat fore-end or not, I believe you might see POI elevation differences.

We certainly seem to have had different experiences with this. "shooting groups with the pistol at varying heights in relation to the shooter seated at one height". This makes me feel that you are possibly experiencing parallax errors if it isn't actual shifting of the pistol when fired if rested on that sloped area. None of my pistol scopes have adjustable parallax (I'm not sure any do and I only use pistol scopes on my pistols) so that makes it imperative that you have your eye in the same plane as the scope and possibly being seated makes that hard to do reliably. The nearest situation I could relate personally to what you seem to be describing would be a shot on a squirrel well up into a tree and I don't commonly try to do that seated. If I need to raise the pistol for such a shot then certainly it would be not only elevated upwards but also angled upwards so that parallax error is minimized and less likely to cause a miss. If I'm being overly simplistic in this, sorry but I can't see any other way to visualize the difference we seem to experience.

The two air pistols I shoot scoped these days are a pp700 and an HW44. My standard process for zeroing a scoped pistol is fully rested on a bench (front bag and a cushion under the bottom of the grip) and then for field shooting I commonly rest my wrist or the bottom of the grip over a branch or the back of my hand against a trunk when time for taking a rested shot exists. Such rested shooting in my experience hasn't resulted in a change of POI from fully rested on the bench that would cause misses at common scoped pistol ranges (which I would consider 35 to maybe 40 yards maximum) but those 2 pistols don't move noticeably when fired. But I guess it can happen dependent on how one rests to shoot, how the pistol can move when fired, and whether parallax is involved or not.
 
FWIW... my experience has been more similar to airngasman. I've been focusing on a lot on this lately the last few months as I began to notice it. To test, I've been siting in a seated position and I place multiple targets in a semi circle shape in front of me (all at the same distance of 10 yards). I sight my scope and center it to the target directly in front of me and then try shooting tartgets to the left and right.... I notice slight POI shifts as I move to targets left and right, but can't figure out why. As far as I can tell, I'm trying to replicate everything the same inlcuding parallax and sight distance... maybe someone else out there knows.... I tried this test will all my pistols (10 different ones) and they all do it to some degree.
 
FWIW... my experience has been more similar to airngasman. I've been focusing on a lot on this lately the last few months as I began to notice it. To test, I've been siting in a seated position and I place multiple targets in a semi circle shape in front of me (all at the same distance of 10 yards). I sight my scope and center it to the target directly in front of me and then try shooting tartgets to the left and right.... I notice slight POI shifts as I move to targets left and right, but can't figure out why. As far as I can tell, I'm trying to replicate everything the same inlcuding parallax and sight distance... maybe someone else out there knows.... I tried this test will all my pistols (10 different ones) and they all do it to some degree.

So to be clear, you don't mention different heights of targets as airngasman began with, or specifically whether you shot rested or not, though I will assume rested. I would say lots more information is needed for any type of valid comparison. What pistol, velocity, pellet, how or if rested, and are you rotating the seat for each target or just rotating your torso? Is any rest used moved as well? I would say with any lower powered pistol, wind drift might make the most difference in the situation you describe. If a pistol is only consistent while shooting level and directly in front of me, I'd probably throw mine all away. Such just hasn't been my experience.
 
I'd go so far as to say any changes in rested positions can cause changes in point-of impact on target; it's simply a matter of how much, and whether in any given situation(s) the changes are enough for any given shooter to notice it as opposed to questioning their shooting abilities. There's certainly a good way to find out; as I suggested bandg try, and Piizzaman and I have (hint, hint 😉).

Another way now occurs to me. Carefully shoot as good group (or groups) as you can from one fixed rested position, then try to shoot as good group (or groups) at the same distance from varying rested positions. The more scientific the protocol(s), the better.
 
I'd go so far as to say any changes in rested positions can cause changes in point-of impact on target; it's simply a matter of how much, and whether in any given situation(s) the changes are enough for any given shooter to notice it as opposed to questioning their shooting abilities. There's certainly a good way to find out; as I suggested bandg try, and Piizzaman and I have (hint, hint 😉).

Another way now occurs to me. Carefully shoot as good group (or groups) as you can from one fixed rested position, then try to shoot as good group (or groups) at the same distance from varying rested positions. The more scientific the protocol(s), the better.

And I'd go so far as to say I've been shooting pistols for over 50 years and have never noticed the phenomenon you are experiencing. I've shot them rested on a bench, rested on whatever I could find for a field shot, and offhand. I've never experienced your issue. Could what you say be true, especially in light of whether such is "enough for any given shooter to notice"? Sure. Could it be incorrect? Sure. In any event, since it isn't enough for this given shooter to notice then I don't need to spend time trying to verify your result. I hope you get it resolved to your satisfaction.
 
"since it isn't enough for this given shooter to notice then I don't need to spend time trying to verify your result." Enough said.

Tell you what. You made the claim of the effect and suggested it would occur for basically all pistols. YOU prove it. Apparently you think your shooting ability is beyond that of others so it should be easy for you to document. I'll be watching for the proof.
 
"YOU prove it." Already did.

"Apparently you think your shooting ability is beyond that of others so it should be easy for you to document. I'll be watching for the proof." I proved it to the only one who matters before presenting the the proof in my post; just decided to share the information, photo and targets documenting it. No amount of further proof would move you off your opinion, so more would be a waste of time. Disprove it if you like, and are able.



Happy Shooting,

Ron
 
My goodness your both right,for bandg to see no difference shows he has mastered his technique =point of aim consistency..like the head to eye to body relationship to pistol point of aim would have to remain very close no matter what position he is in....eye to scope to point of aim=on target..

Because a pistol scope is usually mounted farther away from the eye it would Seem there would be a greater chance of changing the poa,sight picture.....

The point of aim can change because of the relationship of your body to the pistol...=different body position can make the eye to brain focus change,remember your body is trying to self righting itself=ears,eyes head position all come into effect.

The goal is to find where all the body parts and relationship to pistol aiming spot have the least effect=consistently.on target.

All the above posts are true,no one is wrong,all are right....truth bet told ,only your experience can guide you.

Trying to find fault is a waste of time and lets the ego get in the way of the site picture,LOL


 
Shooting a hand gun of any type is much more difficult than shooting a rifle simply because very small things have a greater effect on the shooter's accuracy. So, the OP's experience should not be discounted. At the same time the shooter should know this and his revelation should not be an epiphany. Any change in grip position or grip tension will change the POI because it changes the effect of recoil on the pistol's position. From the moment the pellet starts to move down the barrel, the pistol will be rising as a reactionary force. Any change in the pistol's support will change the POI that includes grip or any other pistol support. This is normal. It is also why I NEVER use rests of any type. If I elect to use support, it is only on my forearms never the pistol.
 
Shooting a hand gun of any type is much more difficult than shooting a rifle simply because very small things have a greater effect on the shooter's accuracy. So, the OP's experience should not be discounted. At the same time the shooter should know this and his revelation should not be an epiphany. Any change in grip position or grip tension will change the POI because it changes the effect of recoil on the pistol's position. From the moment the pellet starts to move down the barrel, the pistol will be rising as a reactionary force. Any change in the pistol's support will change the POI that includes grip or any other pistol support. This is normal. It is also why I NEVER use rests of any type. If I elect to use support, it is only on my forearms never the pistol.

I spent yesterday afternoon shooting the pp700 and HW44. Both scoped. Shot at 25 yards. Shot rested in the following ways-

Front rested at base of moderator and bottom of grip rested on pedestal, front rested under end of barrel and grip rested on pedestal, pistol rested near center with bottom of grip rested on pedestal, front rested at various points mentioned with grip in hands and forearms rested.

Results were clear and simple-no discernible change in POI. Group size certainly varies as less solid rests produce larger groups but they still centered around point of aim. Small groups with both front and rear solidly rested but no difference in POI from rested at base of moderator and under grip to rested under barrel and under grip to rested near center and under grip. Position of rest made no difference in POI. Consider that I was shooting from a consistent seated position with head position varying very little from rested position to rested position.

I completely agree with your view that shooting a handgun is infinitely more difficult than shooting a rifle. And shooting offhand is the most difficult way of shooting a pistol, whether single handed or two handed. I don't agree with the view that varying grip pressure or position will cause any consistent major change in POI beyond the ability of most of us to shoot accurately. I believe that OP was experiencing change in POI related to change in parallax OR POSSIBLY in misestimating changes in POI related to inclined shooting, which is what he initially mentioned related to the effect along with being rested (i.e. shooting at different "heights").

Another factor mentioned by OP was the weight of the external hammer possibly moving the pistol, and that is certainly possible. But I have numerous Ruger revolvers in rimfire and centerfire and they have VERY LARGE long stroke external hammers. I've never experienced the phenomenon with those pistols, whether shot rested or off-hand.

I always zero my pistols rested and shoot them both off-hand and rested. I do not experience any noticeable change in POI from the two shooting methods, just a distinct loss in ability to shoot as accurately off-hand. 
 
Glad to hear you agree with the point I made from the get-go, B. Apologies if my wording was less relatable than how you put it.

"I believe that OP was experiencing change in POI related to change in parallax OR POSSIBLY in misestimating changes in POI related to inclined shooting, which is what he initially mentioned related to the effect along with being rested (i.e. shooting at different "heights")."

Not trying to manipulate your words for nefarious reasons, but it occurs to me that removing part of your statement well sums up the point I was attempting to make and illustrate in my original post. "I believe that OP was experiencing change in POI related to... inclined shooting, which is what he initially mentioned related to the effect along with being rested (i.e. shooting at different "heights")." And I AGREE with the part of your statement I just omitted, "change in parallax OR POSSIBLY in misestimating changes in POI related to inclined shooting".

Are we good now?
 
Glad to hear you agree with the point I made from the get-go, B. Apologies if my wording was less relatable than how you put it.

"I believe that OP was experiencing change in POI related to change in parallax OR POSSIBLY in misestimating changes in POI related to inclined shooting, which is what he initially mentioned related to the effect along with being rested (i.e. shooting at different "heights")."

Not trying to manipulate your words for nefarious reasons, but it occurs to me that removing part of your statement well sums up the point I was attempting to make and illustrate in my original post. "I believe that OP was experiencing change in POI related to... inclined shooting, which is what he initially mentioned related to the effect along with being rested (i.e. shooting at different "heights")." And I AGREE with the part of your statement I just omitted, "change in parallax OR POSSIBLY in misestimating changes in POI related to inclined shooting".

Are we good now?

Only if you are eliminating the part of your original post lumping "rest" in with "gun and shooter angles". The latter I can agree with completely in that gun and shooter angles will almost certainly have an impact on POI, gun angle probably related to incline/decline changes and shooter angles probably related to parallax errors. But the physical rest itself does not have an impact on POI, as my shooting has shown. If you agree then we are good.
 
"But the physical rest itself does not have an impact on POI, as my shooting has shown. If you agree then we are good."

No Sir, I don't agree. So it would be hypocritical of me to agree to your conditional acceptance of my olive branch. I tried. We're done.

But I should agree to your "olive branch" (as in "glad to hear you agree")? I don't agree with you. Period. Talk about hypocritical, there ya go. Done is good.
 
Bandg,

You are arguing against Newtonian physics and your argument has little chance of success. Just because you have not experienced POI shift between rested and unrested pistol shooting does not mean the principle is invalid. Obviously, if pistol recoil is minimal, so is this effect. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. It simply means you have not detected it. The greater the recoil the more obvious this effect is. This is very easy to demonstrate. If you take any pistol with a recoil and compare the barrel line with the guns shooting group center, you will see a significant difference of sometimes greater than a foot at 25 yards. This occurs because the pistol's recoil resistance occurs at the grip and the grip is substantially below the recoil thrust line (the barrel). The greater that distance difference is, the greater the rocking leverage is for any given load. You will note that this is not so much of a factor with a rifle because the shoulder is much more inline with the barrel. That said then, it stands to reason that anything the pistol shooter does to change the pistol's recoil resistance will change the POI. I can go on and state examples, but it would be redundant. My point here is that when you sight in a pistol, it can only be for one circumstance of pistol support. You choose which one.