No you don't, statistically random as heck, if the gun/ammo combination was capable it would not be a "fluke" as you called group, it would happen damn near all the time for average shooter, for @thomasair all the time if rifle/ammo was capable with exception of a random 20mph burst of wind timing things right. My one POS rifle did that one group, it most certainly doesn't say what the gun will do in ideal conditons, it proves random sh_t happens.
A 3 groove barrel?...50 yards sitting on a tri leg stool with shooting sticks.
Full 30 round magazine in .22 cal ( JTS 25.4 & TJ 3 groove barrel ) with the Skout Epoch.
No stink here![]()
View attachment 522702
Standing usig a tripod.View attachment 522878
No more loaded magazines.98 shots? I'm not sure I've ever seen a hole with 98 shots through it.
....why didn't you go ahead and shoot 2 more?
@Bedrock Bob , I have to agree with almost everything you wrote in your reply #40 here, and your original post (#14) clearly shows that you have several guns that shoot really well, and that you can shoot them very well too. I think @karl_h may have been reacting a little too strongly to that one part of the sentence, but I really get what he was driving at and wish more people understood it and think that way (as I think you probably really do). Honestly, I think there is too much focus on how small a group guns can produce – “group size” is simply a horrible performance metric on many levels, and looking for the smallest ones while discounting the bigger ones either overtly by cherry picking or in statistics by averaging makes it even worse. What really matters is the true capability of the gun in the conditions, and that is always going to be a “bigger number” and not a smaller one.
I’d have worded it differently. I think the best way to put it would be that while it “shows what the gun can do”, it more accurately should be understood to “show what the gun is almost certainly not going to do” when called upon to perform.
At the extreme end, I think @SDellinger shows the good and bad of “groups” with his 98 shot group. First, it shows that the system (gun / sighting / ammo / rest / shooter / environment) are extremely consistent, at least for those conditions. But it also shows how little actual information one learns from all that shooting – probably 70% or more of those shots sailed right through what ended up being that final hole leaving zero data behind, other than being part of the count of how many were shot, as part of the and the final dimension on group size. Of course they had no impact on that group size - probably less than 30% did, but those 30% are the more important shots as they show what one is likely to get almost a third of the time.
It takes more work to really understand the true capability of a gun, and I posted an example of such an effort yesterday in a different thread and I’ll just link to it here: https://www.airgunnation.com/threads/tell-the-truth.1324441/page-3#post-1875786 . Of course all that work shows the results in just one set of perfect conditions, so it speaks mostly to the gun and not to the rest of the system. I really do think that what karl-h described as his test is even more telling on true capability of the system, but the two tests are trying to understand a different thing. In the end, had I taken all those shots at one bull, the result would have looked just like the 98 shot group SDellinger shared – maybe a bit bigger, but it was at 50 yards so a smaller MOA, so I have that going for me.
But since this thread is about showing the best or most interesting “groups” we have I’ll show a ten shot one from the same gun at 55 yards (a .22 Daystate Air Ranger, for those that don’t read the other post). I’ve never managed to get all ten in the one small hole – I always end up with one or two slightly off it. Maybe some day – and I’ll admit that I will feel great when that happens, but also that I’ll know it does not mean anything! Anyways, nine in one hole with a stray a few millimeters off to the side (if I recall correctly, it was shot #8, not #10 - could have been an unseen breeze).
View attachment 522905
I guess I was not clear, so I apologize if the way I wrote it came off as offensive to you. When I said "I would have worded it differently" I meant I would have worded what Karl said differently, not what you wrote. I get what you were after, and I get what he was after, and they are two things that can exist at the same time . . .A guy can't write anything here without someone getting a hook into it and trying to reel you in. There are so many armchair editors looking for something to pick apart it's impossible to post without someone wanting to debate in minutia some arrangement of words they can interpret as "wrong".
I realize you may have worded it differently. I realize I didn't specify every detail and include caveats in every generalization.
I was so very wrong to allow such an opening for criticism. In an environment with dozens of guys looking for details to pounce on it is best to simply not offer much of anything of substance and keep the posts shallow and short.
The urge to be an "expert" and correct others is a way of life on this forum. I have a new "daddy" trying to teach me lessons over something I've posted on a daily basis. I understand the attraction to correct an erroneous assumption. But to dig that deep is simply ridiculous.
It's simply an attempt to try and diminish an otherwise good post. Some guys read a post and just have to pour cold water on it. You have to have a fact checker, a lawyer and a psychotherapist to create a post that someone here is not going to take exception to. When you try to explain yourself others pile in and it snowballs into a mess.
It's like a bunch of buzzards in the desert sitting around waiting for something to die. I find it as humorous as I do frustrating. I suppose it's just the culture of the internet nowadays.
I guess I was not clear, so I apologize if the way I wrote it came off as offensive to you. When I said "I would have worded it differently" I meant I would have worded what Karl said differently, not what you wrote. I get what you were after, and I get what he was after, and they are two things that can exist at the same time . . .
I just offered up what I think on the matter, and in the end it was impacted heavily by the interaction of your two posts (along with that great 98 shot group too).
Peace.
5 and 7 land barrels are all the rage nowadays in long range military barrels. They claim less projectile distortion and longer barrel life.
I shoot a Snider 5 groove barrel on a Rem 700x VS action in 6mm. It's got about 15k shots through it and is still 1/2moa at 300 yards. It shoots better than the Hart barrel I had previously and has 5000 more shots through it. So there may be something to the theory that an odd number of lands and grooves are beneficial.
I wondered if they were doing this with airgun barrels. Now I know...
It is a "CUSTOM" from TJ's being made via Hammer Forging processIt's crazy bro. Alien technology. Just beautiful. A helical masterpiece!
How is it done? A button reamer or some type of evil voodoo magic?
It is a "CUSTOM" from TJ's being made via Hammer Forging process![]()