Fake tight shot groups by stacking targets on top of one another?

[SDHNTR]

I was attempting to explain to a buddy today how some shady gun builders offering accuracy guarantees might do so by stacking multiple targets on top of each other until they get a good 3 shot group they can tear off and show. I was struggling to explain how exactly they do this, but I remember reading an article years ago about it. Anyone know what I'm talking about? And can you explain or know of a link that explains the process?

 

[sndmn11]

How did you start explaining it?

 

[SDHNTR]

Well, That's the thing... I was very general. I can't remember exactly how it's done but I want to say the process is to shoot one round into each target and stack a new target on top each time. Then after a bunch of shots, separate them all and you are bound to have one of them which shows a tight group. Something to that effect.

 

[Dented]

Wouldn't it be easier to just get closer to the target?

 

[SDHNTR]

But then you can't say its a 3 shot sub moa group at 100yards.

 

[wapitibob]

No reason to stack a target, shoot 3 shot groups till you get a nice one like everybody on the internet does.

 

[Marbles]

Is this referring to shooting o 3 shot group, if the group is too big slapping up a new target and shooting 3 shots again, and repeating until you get a 3 shot group of the desired size?

 

[SDHNTR]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm telling you there's a hack for this. you guys are no help.

 

[SDHNTR]

Is this referring to shooting o 3 shot group, if the group is too big slapping up a new target and shooting 3 shots again, and repeating until you get a 3 shot group of the desired size?

No, its a matter of shooting through the targets to get groups. So that you could have shot 25 times, or whatever arbitrary amount, but one of those multiple targets you shot through will show a nice tight 3 shot group as if you only shot those three.

 

[sndmn11]

Sounds like magic!

I can't think of a way to make a hole in a stack of papers and miss a sheet in the middle.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sounds like magic!

I can't think of a way to make a hole in a stack of papers and miss a sheet in the middle.

I know. It sounds crazy. I'm obviously not explaining it correctly. I gotta find that old article.

 

[ahlgringo]

Seems easy, shoot through a stack of 10 lined up targets. Then shuffle the 10 targets position slightly (off alignment), shoot again, shuffle again, shoot one more time. I would bet one of the 10 will look really good.

 

[Dented]

But then you can't say its a 3 shot sub moa group at 100yards.

I guess that the point I'm trying to make is, if someone is willing to lie about the target, why wouldn't they be willing to lie about the distance? No matter what method they choose for misrepresenting the accuracy, it's still a lie.

 

[SDHNTR]

I guess that the point I'm trying to make is, if someone is willing to lie about the target, why wouldn't they be willing to lie about the distance? No matter what method they choose for misrepresenting the accuracy, it's still a lie.

I agree with you. That’s beside the point of what I’m trying to show here though. There’s a way to manipulate groups with target stacking.

It’s semantics. It may show that the rifle is capable of a 3 shot whatever sized group, but doesn’t mean it can do it every time. That’s the point I was trying to make with my buddy today that got me thinking of this.

 

[Flyrodr]

Maybe stack up 10 or so targets, shoot one round, then re-stack the targets, slightly OUT of alignment. Shoot a second round, look at targets, hopefully there will then be several with the two rounds tight. Re-stack a third time, again slightly out of alignment, and, cross your fingers, hope that one of the targets will have three rounds tight.

Or practice with an accurate gun until you can use its potential to shoot a 3-shot sub-MOA group.

(Oops, I see I was late after ahlgringo)

 

[dashender7]

I guess that the point I'm trying to make is, if someone is willing to lie about the target, why wouldn't they be willing to lie about the distance? No matter what method they choose for misrepresenting the accuracy, it's still a lie.

This should be the end of the thread.

 

[MallardSX2]

I’m so glad I hunt with a 150 dollar yard sale gun after reading this thread…lol

 

[WeiserBucks]

Wouldn't it be easier to just get closer to the target?

Ask Cooper firearms about their proof targets they send along with the rifles. They're shot at archery range.

 

[Billy Goat]

I think if you add targets on top, while removing from the back of the pile, never shooting more than 3 shots at a target while it's getting moved to the back you can get what you are trying for with enough shots.


I think the principle would be the cone is say an inch or 1.5" in say 30 shots, but it will have a few shots fall together (1/4moa all day) in those 30 shots. You want a target that only has 3 shots in it, so as long as you keep moving the targets back and putting new on the front, you will get a target where 3 fall in that 1/2 moa or whatever. Still going to take a number of shots.


Easier and faster to just lie about the distance.

 

[SDHNTR]

I think if you add targets on top, while removing from the back of the pile, never shooting more than 3 shots at a target while it's getting moved to the back you can get what you are trying for with enough shots.


I think the principle would be the cone is say an inch or 1.5" in say 30 shots, but it will have a few shots fall together (1/4moa all day) in those 30 shots. You want a target that only has 3 shots in it, so as long as you keep moving the targets back and putting new on the front, you will get a target where 3 fall in that 1/2 moa or whatever. Still going to take a number of shots.


Easier and faster to just lie about the distance.

Bingo. I think we have a winner!

Look, I’m absolutely not advocating any of this nonsense. My only point is that you can manipulate the targets to technically get sub moa (or whatever the guarantee may be) without doing it the honest way as most people understand and expect. I just wonder if this is at all common.

Like I said previously, I remember reading an article some 10+ years ago when custom rifles, and their accuracy guarantees, were just starting to really gain popularity. The author’s point was that there can be tricky ways to get nice groups printed on paper that may technically meet the accuracy guarantee without it having been done the way one might think or expect.

I’m just the messenger here. Don’t shoot me.