Cold bore zero versus (very) Hot bore zero “test”

[ZipsNLbs]

Awesome info

 

[Macintosh]

Personally I'd consider a larger 10-round group BETTER than a smaller 3-round group because they both reflect the same "group", the larger one is simply a more complete picture of where any one shot from that rifle will land, plus that means it comes with the added benefit of allowing a more accurate zero. This experiment (remember the experiment?) shows me that the groups I've been using to zero have no mechanical downside compared to shooting a bunch of more tedious and time-consuming cold-bore groups to zero, so I consider that convenience a benefit for my hunting as well as my general shooting/practice. I'm also not shooting heavy-enough cartridges that simply using one or two 10-round groups while zeroing is problematic from a shooting form or fatigue standpoint such that I have a different result if I only shoot several 3-round groups with long rests between. I actually think shooting multiple groups over different sessions potentially introduces more variability, rather than less. Perhaps if I was shooting a real whomper of a rifle with punishing recoil it could be helpful for me to stretch out a larger zeroing group over more time. That's fine, at that point its how it affects the shooter, and this thread was supposed to be about how it affects the rifle.

 

[Gorp2007]

This is NOT an attack on anything you said personally. I am curious though, for those who agree, what if the 10 consecutive round group is terrible, like 3 MOA? What do you do then, blame the equipment, wind, barrel mirage, load, or what?

Let the barrel cool down, shoot a few 3-round groups until one of them is sub-MOA, then take a quick photo, post it on the classifieds, and say I'm moving it along to fund other projects.

 

[JGRaider]

I'd contend 10 shot groups introduce more variability into the equation than several 3-5 shot groups, which is why the 10 consecutive shot group is always bigger, given the same proven load.

Anyway, do whatever works for you. Like I used to tell all of our aoudad, deer, and antelope hunters.....I don't care what you shoot (within reason of course) as long as you can accurately shoot it.

 

[atmat]

I'd contend 10 shot groups introduce more variability into the equation than several 3-5 shot groups, which is why the 10 consecutive shot group is always bigger, given the same proven load.

You can contend whatever you want. But if it’s not based in any statistics or testing it’s just you guessing.

Edit: I’ll answer your question though. A 10-shot group is usually bigger because you’re getting more data about the barrel’s maximum cone. Cherry picking any 3-shots are likely to be smaller by random chance. That’s how probability and statistics works.

 

[JGRaider]

So "multiple" 3-5 shot groups is cherry picking?

 

[JGRaider]

You can contend whatever you want. But if it’s not based in any statistics or testing it’s just you guessing.

Edit: I’ll answer your question though. A 10-shot group is usually bigger because you’re getting more data about the barrel’s maximum cone. Cherry picking any 3-shots are likely to be smaller by random chance. That’s how probability and statistics works.

As are you.......I'm sure you're using wind flags when shooting groups, right? If not, then you're guessing, even at 100 yds.

 

[atmat]

So "multiple" 3-5 shot groups is cherry picking?

If you’re aggregating all of your 3-5 shot groups into one larger “group”, then no.

If you’re just taking 3-5 shot groups and treating them independently, then yes.

As are you.......I'm sure you're using wind flags when shooting groups, right? If not, then you're guessing, even at 100 yds.

This is called a “false equivalence fallacy,” where you’re changing the subject to something different and trying to equalize it to the first subject.

Regardless, I’ll play along. What wind speed is required to introduce measurable horizontal stringing in bullets at 100 yards — particularly those of high BC? You’ll see that “guessing” at wind at 100 yards produces incredibly low statistical variance, provided it’s not an extreme cross wind.

All of these things are measurable and data driven. You saying “WeLL iT wOrKs FoR mE sO i GuEsS yOu’Re WrOnG” isn’t.

Edit: Also, for gosh sakes learn how to use the multi-quote feature.

Edit 2: Apparently I fell for the troll bait and now discussing zeroing on a hot vs. cold barrel thread. I’ll stop engaging here.

 

[JGRaider]

I agree I suck at multi quote. I already stated I use the same target over a certain period of days. High BC obviously mitigates wind effects, but it is there, even at 100 yds. Obviously without wind flags you're guessing as to what's happening at the target, the bench, and everywhere in between. I'm sure you know conditions vary between these points often. So how do you know the wind isn't responsible for some variance in your 10 shot group if you're not using wind flags?

I've never said you're wrong for doing what your doing. For me, it's a waste of time as I've never had any trouble whatsoever finding accurate, repeatable loads for any of my HUNTING rifles.

 

[BLJ]

They’re garbage barrels. There is no legitimate reason to suffer a barrel that isn’t properly stress relieved. It’s a coping mechanism that people tell themselves when they really believe they made a good choice on a purchase and that purchase sucks.

It’s a tool. They’re are sub $600 rifles that do not have any issue in functionality or use/ choosing a rifle that does have issues because it “looks” better and then justifying its failures is ridiculous.

Would you share your preferred sub $600 rifle?

 

[Axlrod]

I agree I suck at multi quote. I already stated I use the same target over a certain period of days. High BC obviously mitigates wind effects, but it is there, even at 100 yds. Obviously without wind flags you're guessing as to what's happening at the target, the bench, and everywhere in between. I'm sure you know conditions vary between these points often. So how do you know the wind isn't responsible for some variance in your 10 shot group if you're not using wind flags?

I've never said you're wrong for doing what your doing. For me, it's a waste of time as I've never had any trouble whatsoever finding accurate, repeatable loads for any of my HUNTING rifles.

So if I understand what you're saying, you feel shooting 10 shot groups is a waste of time right?

 

[JGRaider]

All at once, for me, yes.

 

[Pro953]

This is NOT an attack on anything you said personally. I am curious though, for those who agree, what if the 10 consecutive round group is terrible, like 3 MOA? What do you do then, blame the equipment, wind, barrel mirage, load, or what?

Don’t worry my feelings are intact!

I guess for me, the data is the data…. I am not blaming anything. If I have a 3 MOA group that is fine, I just need to understand what I need to do to shrink the group to a size I find acceptable.

95% of the time it’s the guy in the mirror causing the issue.

For practice and general shooting, I would not shoot a 10 round group, but in those cases I am not at the range, instead in the field shooting rocks etc in hunting type positions and environments. I would find 10 round groups helpful for load development as I think it would help provide more accurate data, taking my skills into consideration. Better rifleman than me might make it work, but I still flinch, pull shots, or just make some errors at times that while representative of my as a shooter, they do not reflect the accuracy of the equipment so the greater round count can help dilute some of that that. Screwing up one shot in three provides very different data than one in 10.

Honestly I do not at all understand your argument that 10 shots provides more variables. The only variable I could think of would be shooter fatigue and barrel heat, but as we are learning here it seems the second may be a falsehood with decent equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mighteywhitehunter]

Thanks for all the work and good info!

 

[fwafwow]

Great info!

I also learned that wasting time on the internet is more fun for some than “wasting time” shooting ~7 more shots.

And I think I know where PSEMach1evolve is

 

[wind gypsy]

#9 has me wondering. 3/4 MOA shift between centers of 10 shot groups seems notable, no?

 

[Formidilosus]

#9 has me wondering. 3/4 MOA shift between centers of 10 shot groups seems notable, no?

The you for reminding me to edit it. #9 started the hot group with .1 mil accidentally dialed on the turret. You will see and hear it in the video. We continued with that group where it was and then did the third.


The difference in deviation between cold and second hot group when at zero was .32”


Editing the post now.

 

[SirChooCH]

Form how about testing cleaned rifle vs dirty now. Does it shift and for how many rounds? Heard you mention your cleaning rifles opinion on the podcast but never dove into it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form how about testing cleaned rifle vs dirty now. Does it shift and for how many rounds? Heard you mention your cleaning rifles opinion on the podcast but never dove into it.

It doesn’t. Well, from clean to dirty there usually will be a shift, but it is barrel to barrel dependent.

#8 and #10 are both my rifles. #8 has more than 20,000 rounds on it without ever being cleaned; and #10 is a 6XC with +/- 700 rounds on it without ever being cleaned.

 

[JGRaider]

What cartridge are you shooting that gets 20k rounds through the same barrel?