What's your favorite shot group you've had?
- Thread starter thammer
- Start date
I tried really hard to make a post that no one could find some detail to refute. I read it twice to make sure there was nothing that gave someone here the opportunity to tell me how wrong I was. Even editing a line or two I thought might cause trouble.
It was difficult to find fault with that post but YOU DID IT! It took a lot of work and persistence but you found something to peck at and you deserve recognition.
EXCELLENT JOB!
I stand corrected and I will try to do better next time!
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I know the groups I shared were mostly random luck, mostly. I know this because I can’t do it when I try really hard, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it, and I impressed myself. You can’t pee in my Cheerios Karl, no sir…
Upvote 0
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
Upvote 0
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?
Upvote 0
@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).
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).
Upvote 0
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...
Upvote 0
@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
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.
Upvote 0
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.
Upvote 0
I'm sorry.
My response to you was venting and it had very little to do with your post.
We are in agreement. I used your post as an opportunity to gripe in general about something you had nothing to do with. That was unfair and a lot like what I was griping about.
You were being objective and respectful and my post failed to acknowledge that at all.
I do apologize sir and I hope you have a merry Christmas and a great new year!
Upvote 0
Re reading this post. Some of the groups show some amazing skills combined with an accurate rifle. There are so many variables in how these groups were shot it’s hard to determine if it’s the rifle or the shooters skills or a combination, doesn’t really matter as far as the intent of the post I don’t think. What was the op hoping to see? I took it as just posting some great groups. Rewarding for most of us. The target I posted was a reflection of my rifle’s capability not really any skill involved as I was shooting off a bench with the rifle bagged fore and aft. I have a whole stack of these targets exactly like this one. You can see light through the whole stack. Now if I could only shoot a group 5 times this size off hand! Anyway it’s a wonderful rifle and it lets me know if the shot is off it’s all on me. It will reward me accordingly 
Merry Christmas everyone, may God richly bless you and yours.
Merry Christmas everyone, may God richly bless you and yours.Upvote 0
As too a contents depth ... Many on forums are here to learn as the growth of interest has far exceeded those who may be viewed as Veterans or Old timers weighted against the less knowing or we'll respectfully say Ignorant.
If and when the content is supported by actual experiences be it Hands-On or Involvement in some manor ? ( we'll call it Talking what you Walk ) the DEPTH of information shared by any said Forum member very much so can be complex so that others go into or fall into that opened rabbits hole of discovery having the guidance and tolerance to doubts or questions of schooled teachers. The more knowledgeable those who choose to join the conversation the more EVERYONE has potential to learn something.
* Static / Push back / Trolls & Nay-Sayers as well as very educated counter viewpoints should become ... IMO.
Now I will agree wholeheartedly "Some" posts read like a Tabloid of He said She said & I've read it on the internet so many times it must be true !! ... That these type threads can be so convoluted is misspoken fact or figures & Hearsay there shear looseness of cohesive conversation is a poop show and these threads quickly get ugly with the "Corrective Attitudes" and member to member bashing that ensues .
If you go deep in conversations put your Big Boy pants on and wear some thick skin too .... as such if you can support what you say without getting defensive, all the "Noise" should roll right off as water on a duck back !!!
In closing this rant,
If you actually know something that could help others yet remain content silent, you may as well be Lurking along side those who post little if at all.
MERRY CHRISTMAS & Peace to the AG Forums ...
If and when the content is supported by actual experiences be it Hands-On or Involvement in some manor ? ( we'll call it Talking what you Walk ) the DEPTH of information shared by any said Forum member very much so can be complex so that others go into or fall into that opened rabbits hole of discovery having the guidance and tolerance to doubts or questions of schooled teachers. The more knowledgeable those who choose to join the conversation the more EVERYONE has potential to learn something.
* Static / Push back / Trolls & Nay-Sayers as well as very educated counter viewpoints should become ... IMO.
Now I will agree wholeheartedly "Some" posts read like a Tabloid of He said She said & I've read it on the internet so many times it must be true !! ... That these type threads can be so convoluted is misspoken fact or figures & Hearsay there shear looseness of cohesive conversation is a poop show and these threads quickly get ugly with the "Corrective Attitudes" and member to member bashing that ensues .
If you go deep in conversations put your Big Boy pants on and wear some thick skin too .... as such if you can support what you say without getting defensive, all the "Noise" should roll right off as water on a duck back !!!
In closing this rant,
If you actually know something that could help others yet remain content silent, you may as well be Lurking along side those who post little if at all.
MERRY CHRISTMAS & Peace to the AG Forums ...
Upvote 0
Here is my target box from yesterday. An average and fair progression of a couple hours plinking.
Cometa 400 gas ram with open sights at 25 yards shooting Wal Mart crosmans.
The targets are labeled 1-5. I shot them in order as the afternoon went by.
#1 - My first 5 shots of the day sitting in a lawn chair with elbows on my knees. The rifle shoots a tad high.
#2 - 5 shots offhand. The rifle shoots high and I need to get better focus on the front post. My pattern is vertical.
#3 - 2 clicks down and I tried a lot harder. Still not focusing on the front sight.
The rifle is over the dot and ready to plink. I shot 100 shots at shotgun shells and dinosaurs from 30-70 yards. The rifle warmed from 40 to 70 degrees over an hour and a half. I was driving tacks at 50 but I noticed it was shooting a bit low. I went back to the target.
#4 - Shooting with elbows on my knees. 5 shots hit low and I moved the rear sight back up a click. 5 shots grouped nicely but still low. Moved it back up another click.
I'm stoked about that last group. It's telling me the rifle is capable of it and i just need to work on my end. I might be wrong. It could be a fluke. But I really want to believe.
Shot some more dinosaurs and shotgun shells. It getting late and the temp is down below 50.
#5 - last ten shots offhand.
That's as real as a guy can make it. An average day. One nice tight pattern. A few good ones. A few turkeys. An unremarkable yet very satisfying afternoon plinking.
Cometa 400 gas ram with open sights at 25 yards shooting Wal Mart crosmans.
The targets are labeled 1-5. I shot them in order as the afternoon went by.
#1 - My first 5 shots of the day sitting in a lawn chair with elbows on my knees. The rifle shoots a tad high.
#2 - 5 shots offhand. The rifle shoots high and I need to get better focus on the front post. My pattern is vertical.
#3 - 2 clicks down and I tried a lot harder. Still not focusing on the front sight.
The rifle is over the dot and ready to plink. I shot 100 shots at shotgun shells and dinosaurs from 30-70 yards. The rifle warmed from 40 to 70 degrees over an hour and a half. I was driving tacks at 50 but I noticed it was shooting a bit low. I went back to the target.
#4 - Shooting with elbows on my knees. 5 shots hit low and I moved the rear sight back up a click. 5 shots grouped nicely but still low. Moved it back up another click.
I'm stoked about that last group. It's telling me the rifle is capable of it and i just need to work on my end. I might be wrong. It could be a fluke. But I really want to believe.
Shot some more dinosaurs and shotgun shells. It getting late and the temp is down below 50.
#5 - last ten shots offhand.
That's as real as a guy can make it. An average day. One nice tight pattern. A few good ones. A few turkeys. An unremarkable yet very satisfying afternoon plinking.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
It's crazy bro. Alien technology. Just beautiful. A helical masterpiece!
How is it done? A button reamer or some type of evil voodoo magic?
Upvote 0
It is a "CUSTOM" from TJ's being made via Hammer Forging process
Indeed! The amount of groove surface and the great finish would require a very special reamer. Hammering a polished bore around a mandrel is an awesome process and that bore is impeccable. A real work of art!
My little Cometa has a hammer forged barrel. It's silky in there. No tool chatter or tight spots that I can feel or see. From my limited experience it's a better barrel than the average reamed and polished tube.
I'm not sure about my 5 groove Snider. I don't see chatter in it. I have no idea how it was rifled.
Yours is a funky beast with those three lands. It obviously offers superb precision. What a hoot man! You just don't see stuff like that every day.
Upvote 0