I had considered creating this thread a couple days ago, but I don't post images, and I thought it inappropriate to try to lead the charge on something that's usually accompanied by a target photo, without a target photo. I created a thread in the rifle forum instead, to share a recent grouping experience, and usncorpsman replied by sharing a 10rd group of his own. So, maybe this dedicated thread should be a thing. I'll lead by double-posting my recent group stats, and by encouraging usncorpsman to do the same, and then maybe that other, now redundant thread can be deleted or just naturally whither into oblivion. Other participants can help refine the thread criteria, in this infant stage. I am thinking 10rds, no less than 50y to the target, and at least the front of the rifle is supported. Rifle stats and other relevant context should accompany the pictures and/or stats as well.

I'll get my act together with pictures someday. I just don't want to pay for a subscription to a hosting site. Not that I think they're unreasonable in charging for such a service; I just don't want to post images bad enough to pay. So, for now, my images will be links to google photos; hopefully that'll work.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Colt LE901
Leupold VX3i LRP 8.5-25
Gemtech HVT
Magpul UBR
Factory trigger
Atlas Bipod
Rear bag
Prone
Nosler 168gr Custom Competition
Shot semi-auto
100m
10rds
1.050" center-to-center of widest dispersion point
Photo of group

Since y'all have turned me onto the 10rd group, I have been somewhat disappointed with the 5.56 gun I have been shooting. That gun does have a couple aspects that could be working against me, but I didn't want to make excuses out of those aspects. The LE901 is a gun I have put a good bit of work into, and it has been very accurate for me; especially with the 168gr Nosler CC. So, in the interest of both proving to myself that I am not the main contributing factor in my 5.56 gun's perceived poor performance, and truly proving the accuracy of the 901, I set out to shoot the first-ever 10rd group out of it. I am pleased with the result, especially considering the fact that the shot that creates the widest dispersion point is a shot that I felt myself mess up; so I suspect the rifle's accuracy is even better than what this group represents. Pretty cool. I think the 901 (though under a different designation) serves as Canada's DMR; it's a nice rifle. I bought mine when I was actually in the market for a Ruger SR762, years ago. Needless to say, I am darn glad I ended up with the Colt. It is one of only a few guns of mine that I don't think I'd ever care to part with.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

10 shots at 200yds from my Noveske N6 using Shooters World Precision powder and 168gr SMK

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I'll get my act together with pictures someday. I just don't want to pay for a subscription to a hosting site. Not that I think they're unreasonable in charging for such a service; I just don't want to post images bad enough to pay.

Uhhh, Imgur is FREE!

I created an Imgur account last year, for the sole purpose of hosting photos for use on SIGforum, but can't, for the life of me, figure out how to use it. If anyone can't see my linked photo, please let me know, as that will prompt further Imgur efforts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I created an Imgur account last year, for the sole purpose of hosting photos for use on SIGforum, but can't, for the life of me, figure out how to use it.

^^^ Open the image in another page, copy address and use the image insert icon above.

There may be other ways.

I would also consider additional steps in the future such as editing first for size or cropping then upload back to your site.
It might make for a more palatable picture on occasion.

Nice group.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I created an Imgur account last year, for the sole purpose of hosting photos for use on SIGforum, but can't, for the life of me, figure out how to use it.

I use Imgur exclusively for hosting photos on two different forums. Here's a few general bullet points/suggestions on use for this purpose:

- Consider creating an 'Album' for specific categories to make finding images easier. I have one Album for SIGforum, and one for AudiZine. Down the road you may want to post that image again, so Albums makes it easier the next time you want to find a specific image to post in a another thread at a later date.

- When you upload the image, you should set the 'Auto Resize' to an appropriate resolution for viewing on SIGforum. I use 1024x768, 800x600, or 640x480 depending on what would be best for that image, in that thread. One reason you need to consider different resolution(s) is based on the orientation of the image (landscape vs. portrait). The 'Auto Resize' resolutions are based on a landscape orientation, so adjust accordingly for portrait. While editing the image (to resize or crop it) 'can' be done on the Imgur site, it never seems to work for me. I find it easier to just upload it at a different resolution rather than attempting to resize it!

- You should also 'Add to Album' at the time you upload the image. While you can edit Albums to add (or remove) pictures, you have to look for that feature. As such, I find it easiest to do both of these things (Auto Resize and Add to Album) at upload.

- After the image is uploaded to Imgur, click on it and in the dialog box that comes up, click 'Copy' for the BBCode link. Then you just 'Paste' that in your post/reply to the thread and your done! The BBCode includes the link to the photo/image already wrapped in [img] tags, so there's nothing extra for you to do!

Took the liberty of using your group and trying Balistic-X app.
Making some assumptions and shooting pic from my computer screen.
So accuracy depicted may vary from reality.

Sorry for the drift but playing around a bit more with app.

What's the standard, when it comes to measuring groups? I see center-to-center, and I see outer edge to outer edge. I get the impression that competitions measure outer to outer, and subtract the bullet diameter, resulting in CTC. A friend with competition experience says they'd flatten the target on a table, measure to the outside edges of the soot ring around the hole, and then subtract diameter. That group of mine actually comes in a touch better, using that method. What is the standard for this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
What's the standard, when it comes to measuring groups?

Center to center has always been the standard among competition shooters. That eliminates the variation due to different diameter bullets. Outside edge to outside edge would skew the claimed “size” of a group in favor of a 0.224" bullet as compared with 0.308", for example. Outside to outside is okay if we’re only doing it for ourselves and shoot only one caliber of bullet, but it’s not the better method for comparison with other shooters and other calibers.

If the bullet holes form a tight cluster I start by measuring the outside width of the group and then subtract the diameter of the bullet for a CTC measurement. If, however, the holes are more scattered, it’s possible to get the same result by measuring (for example) the distance from the opposite edges of the most dispersed holes. That way subtracting the bullet diameter isn’t necessary (or appropriate). And then I divide the CTC measurement by the appropriate multiple of 1.047 to get the minute of angle conversion.

And I always measure from the edges of the holes after the paper has been flattened. Trying to estimate the center of a hole by eye and positioning the caliper arms that way is less precise. It probably doesn’t matter too much if winning a match isn’t involved, but I’m always bemused when I see a YouTube ammo tester doing it that way and leaves me wondering what else they don’t understand and know how to do (other than trying to shoot precision groups by using a huge black bull’s-eye target).

As sigfreund states above, the measuring standard is center to center. Easy in concept, more challenging in practice -- especially if the holes in paper are touching. Also noted by sigfreund, flattening the paper prior to measuring is better.

Bullets don't always leave holes in paper which are the size of their diameter. The rifle bore squeezes the bullet by a few thousandths of an inch. Paper tears and bends. Most people don't confirm the size of a single bullet hole in paper with calipers prior to measuring extreme edge-to-edge group distances.

The caliper measurement C-to-C of the blue-square-group looks pretty accurate at 1.05". If there is any error in this measurement, it can't be more than a few hundredths of an inch. This is a great 10-shot group at 100 yards, especially for a semi-auto. 3 posts lower, smschulz's electronic measurement shows .74" C-to-C. I've seen enough 3/4" groups to know that's not one of them. A challenge with electronic measurement systems is the need for distance calibration. Some of these aps require that an American quarter be included in the picture -- thus the system is calibrated for the quarter's .955" diameter.

Measuring groups on steel can be a challenge, too. Bullets with blunt tips can produce vague impact marks. The splash of painted targets can be quite large if bullet velocity is high. Pointy bullets make very distinct marks on freshly painted steel, and their impact locations are small. HPBT bullets such as Sierra MatchKing are among the easiest to score for group size. Group size accuracy on painted steel can easily be within 1/8" -- not the best for 100 yard target measurements, but plenty good enough at hundreds of yards.

****
I don't shoot many 10-round groups at 100 yards, or at any distance. Just don't get into it. If I plan to hammer away at only 1 target, I'd much rather shoot dot drills - 1 shot each at multiple 1 MOA dots on 1 target paper. A 10-shot or 15-shotor 20-shot dot drill where all shots are in the black is solid shooting. The shooter receives immediate feedback on each shot -- on target or pulled in a certain direction.

I lost quite a few historical pictures from defective drives, and from the Photobucket pricing debacle. This is one of the few dot drill photos I still have. 15 rounds prone, 308 bolt action, 200 yards, 2" pasters. 11 in the inner 1" circle, 4 in the outer. If all shots were superimposed on the same paster, the vertical & horizontal spreads would each be around 1 inch.


10 rounds on 18" by 24" steel at 700 yards. I can't find notes on wind conditions that day, but I suspect crosswinds were less than 5 mph. 6.5 Creedmoor bolt action, Hornady factory 140 ELDM. 2.5" vertical dispersion & 3.5" horizontal dispersion. Verticals are what really count at distant targets. It's what the big boys in F-class competition sometimes refer to as "holding the water line". Horizontals are wind effects and wind call errors.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Most people don't confirm the size of a single bullet hole in paper with calipers prior to measuring extreme edge-to-edge group distances.

Never thought of that. Always learning something new, so thanks. Added: I just measured some of my old targets, and you’re absolutely right. None of the holes I measured were the nominal diameter of the bullets that made them. For example, 308 Winchester holes in good paper ran slightly less than 0.30".

One of the thing that continually puzzles me is why shooters for record or demonstrations use poorly designed targets that make it hard to achieve consistent points of aim and reduce aiming errors. But if we’re using either homemade or downloaded targets it also helps to use something other than lightweight 20 pound printer paper. Most office supply stores carry “card” or “cover” stock in heavier weights, such as the 80# I use for such targets. (My printer doesn’t like the 100# weight, so check a few sheets before buying an entire 250-sheet package.)

Homemade targets like this are easily produced using the Microsoft Paint program or something similar:





Copy the image, paste it into a Word document, size it as desired, and print. They’re even better if they can be printed in a color like blue or green.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/zcfStJ7SPWaPrN3L9
I have tried Imgur twice more; it'll act like it's uploading, the little bar will complete it's progress, and I still have zero pictures; it won't upload for me. I'll look into Postimage. Until I get my photo skills sorted out, I reckon the folks who care about the content can go through the trouble of opening another tab.

This group is not new, but I am posting it now, because the rifle that produced it is getting a couple of potentially meaningful upgrades soon, so I'll be seeing if this group can be bested. Measurement was achieved by measuring furthest dispersion at edge of carbon ring, and subtracting .220". Scope is Leupold 6HD Patrol.

I also intend to do another with the 901, but from 530m. I did a little test run the other day, and learned a few things: The "pasture pets" don't freak out, like they do when I shoot from the 300m spot; this is good. This group should not be shot past probably 0800, as the lighting isn't favorable past then. I need to use a mat of sorts, as the firing position has me in gravel. I need to dial another 1 to 1.5 MOA into the elevation, as my existing DOPE only went to 500m, and that extra 30m is of consequence. I hope (perhaps optimistically) to produce a 1.5 MOA group from this range, with the 901.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Uhhh, Imgur is FREE!

Postimage is free, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One of the thing that continually puzzles me is why shooters for record or demonstrations use poorly designed targets that make it hard to achieve consistent points of aim and reduce aiming errors.

This is an important concept when shooting groups. Aim small, miss small.

But what is the goal? The tightest groups might be possible by shooting like the benchrest folks. Aim at a precise point, then intentionally have the POI off to one side. That way the bullet holes don't obscure the POA. IMO this is OK for the occasional refrigerator trophy target, but my goal is to hit what I aim at.

A less distinct aimpoint -- or one that is blown out by bullet impacts -- challenges the shooter a bit more. This becomes especially true as distances increase, when wind drift comes into play. Or when target distances & air density variability exists, and elevation issues come into play. This is why 1 MOA dot drills are so useful in assessing shooting fundamentals. Every target is its own target and group. There's immediate feedback to the shooter on each shot.

Sigfreund regularly discusses accuracy vs. precision -- impacts centered around the POA vs. impacts centered around each other. IMO a good shooter does both at the same time. It's a complete test of rifle, ammo, and shooter.

*****
One of better tests of a shooter's long range capabilities is the Nightforce ELR match in Wyoming. A couple of time we organized a big squad of Colorado locals. Great comradery, but a bunch of ribbing, too. Between wind, long distance targets, time pressures, multiple targets, and the clock -- it's a challenging competition.

One stage had turkey-shaped steel at maybe 600-700 yards, with the targets mounted on top of t-posts. As the first squad of the match on this stage, target distances were unfortunately off. Our first shooter hit the bottom of the t-post on the second target of the stage. The comments were "great wind call, but that was just a bit low".

Later in the day, a stage had full-sized bull elk-shaped steel at 1000 and 1700 yards, and we had to bounce between the two targets. The 1000 yard elk was low in a valley, with a fairly steep downward angle shot. The 1700 yard elk was high on a ridge, across the valley, at a slight upward angle. I nailed the 1000 yard target, but horribly under estimated the wind for the 1700 yard target. Elevation was perfect, but I hit way behind. The joke was that I hit the imaginary second cow elk in tow....and I hit her in the ass....

Accuracy and precision. Aim small, miss small. POI equals POA.
John Wayne in The Undefeated -- "Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon. Windage and elevation."

Most shooters I know only shoot groups when zeroing their scopes, checking their zeros, doing load development and/or performing seating depth tests; there may be other applications but they very seldom shoot groups.

Benchrest, F-Class targets have no hard points and steel targets seldom have any aiming points whatsoever.

Good shooters learn to center the reticle on the target, this is why shooting dot drills is important; learning to divide the target equally with the reticle is a skill that can only be learned through practice

quote:

Benchrest, F-Class targets have no hard points and steel targets seldom have any aiming points whatsoever.

Benchrest shooters I know are holding on one of the corners of that black square, a very precise aiming point.
Shooting F class, I would of course have elevation settings for the known ranges but when the wind came up, I would find myself holding out at say 9 0'clock in the 8 ring to get center hits.
My LR friend with a hundred acres has a steel plate at 600 yards. He paints it white with about a 3 inch black spot for aiming.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:

quote:

Benchrest, F-Class targets have no hard points and steel targets seldom have any aiming points whatsoever.

Benchrest shooters I know are holding on one of the corners of that black square, a very precise aiming point.
Shooting F class, I would of course have elevation settings for the known ranges but when the wind came up, I would find myself holding out at say 9 0'clock in the 8 ring to get center hits.
My LR friend with a hundred acres has a steel plate at 600 yards. He paints it white with about a 3 inch black spot for aiming.

I stand corrected regarding Benchrest and F-Class competition targets. I don’t shoot targets as a normal practice, other than dot drills, as my focus is on steel at long range. I do know if a shooter wants to shoot better groups a mechanical front rest and rear sand bag will perform better than a collapsible front rest and squeeze bag.