Finally, a bolt rifle I can love!

[Justin Crossley]

I would not shoot 10 shot groups with that rifle unless you just really want to buy barrels. That logic is totally flawed for a hunting rifle. You're never going to shoot 10 shots in a row at big game animals. instead I believe you're way better off shooting one shot and letting the barrel cool completely even if you have to wait until the next day. Shoot at the same target each time for 5 or 10 shots, or whatever makes you happy. This is how your rifle will perform when you're hunting. That first, cold bore shot is the important one.

 

[mtswampfox]

This guy is speaking my language. Screw 10 shot groups. Confirm holdovers/scope adjustments at your intended hunting ranges and go kill stuff. I would put way more emphasis on hitting kill zone sized targets at hunting ranges (with your first shot) than obsessing over group size, like some here do.

tend to be in this camp. You may have a stable of rifles that all shoot MOA but there is one that just feels right and makes tiny groups far easier than the rest.Far more things to cause a miss than the bench rest stats of the rifle.

 

[16Bore]

Groups, schmoups.......

Nice rig. It's about as much a turn-key deal you can get and a good call on the scope. So simple.

I'm a bit curious on the ELDX myself.

 

[luke moffat]

It's about as much a turn-key deal you can get and a good call on the scope. So simple.

I hope so...I got two coming...couldn't pass them up for $450 on SWFA at the moment.

 

[Yellowknife]

Its in interesting theory, but I don't buy the added value of a 10 shot group, I shoot 1/2 MOA 3 shot groups to 1K nearly everytime I try. ... In my situation with my hunting rifle, 10 shot groups would be counter productive, each 10 shot group would take 1% out of my barrel life minimum(300 RUM)

I don't think anybody here is advocating that we should all be shooting 10 shot groups. The value is pretty limited for most people and most guns, and there are also other ways to determine that information (like shooting multiple groups at various ranges, which you presumably HAVE done) I think what Form is trying to explain is the inherent limitations of a 3 shot group. And he is correct. Statistically, it's a very poor measure of precision if all you ever shoot is are those three shots and no others. He's also trying to explain the difference between precision and accuracy, which lots of people don't understand. A true 1/2 MOA gun would be very PRECISE but that doesn't mean is ACCURATE. Was that 1/2 MOA 1000 yd group you shot centered perfectly on the target, or was it a little off? On the flip side, an 2 MOA gun can be very very ACCURATE... but only if enough shots are taken to reasonably determine the center of the group.

Accuracy and Precision

You will need to shoot more with a low precision gun than a high precision gun to get to the same absolute level of "accuracy" i.e. centering the group on the bullseye within a fixed error range. If your gun can really shoot 1/2 MOA for 3 shots every single time, then you don't need 10 shots to have good accuracy.

If the first 3 shots are consistently 1/2 MOA or better, and typically I shoot 1 to 2 rounds per kill, then by the law of averages, 3 shot groups seem to cover what I need them to do.

You are really confusing precision and accuracy there. What if that 1/2 MOA group was 3 ft to the left? Still a dang good group, but you would miss the deer! Just because you can shoot a 1/2 MOA 3 shot group, does NOT mean you can hit a 1/2 MOA target on demand. Or even a 1 MOA target for that matter. I've proven this to myself many times. My main sporter rig will shoot sub MOA 3 shot groups from a bench the vast majority of the time and in fact has many "one hole" 100 yd groups to it's credit. However, it is very very difficult with that gun to go 5 for 5 on a 3" sticker at 300 yds (~1 MOA). 10 for 10 would be impossible, even with it's most favored load. For what I use that gun for, I simply don't care. The main thing is the all shots are within close proximity to point of aim and not consistently high/left or any other place.

Fundamentally, the more samples (shots) you have to measure, the more you know about the precision of the gun and the better you can adjust the accuracy via the scope. However, as has been noted... it's totally irrelevant for most people, including me. Our targets are big and close and the gun/ammo error is much smaller than our environmental or human induced errors in the field. However while 10 shots aren't required... and it's true that 3 shot groups probably cover what you need, I think you might find at least 5 shot groups during sight in will result in less fussing around trying to center groups at longer ranges or wondering why you had to add 2 clicks on the next trip to the range, etc. At least it has for me.


(Side note on the "law of averages" Law of averages - Wikipedia)

 

[Jason Snyder]

This guy is speaking my language. Screw 10 shot groups. Confirm holdovers/scope adjustments at your intended hunting ranges and go kill stuff. I would put way more emphasis on hitting kill zone sized targets at hunting ranges (with your first shot) than obsessing over group size, like some here do.

10 shot groups are especially useful for getting a true zero and true holdovers. As already pointed out, averages are dangerous to assume from if the sample size is small


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

10 shot groups are especially useful for getting a true zero and true holdovers. As already pointed out, averages are dangerous to assume from if the sample size is small


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well hell, why stop at 10? If 10 is better than 5, wouldn't 15 be better than 10?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Well hell, why stop at 10? If 10 is better than 5, wouldn't 15 be better than 10?

Yes, it would. There is the point of diminishing returns too.

I don't care what folks do. Shoot three shot groups and repeat that three times and take the aggregate if you want. However, if House think s single three shot group gives you a meaningful estimate of repeatability you're going to be disappointed in the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yellowknife]

Well hell, why stop at 10? If 10 is better than 5, wouldn't 15 be better than 10?

The statistical improvement in accuracy as sample size increases is non linear. Depends on the precision of the gun, but generally 3 sucks. 5 is better. 7 is very good. 10 is excellent but is unneeded for most of us. 15 would only improve things by a almost unmeasurable amount.

 

[16Bore]

You're never going to fire 3 shots at anything from the same position and distance, other than a target. Unless you like to shoot dead animals.


Or beat a dead horse.

F-class ain't hunting.

 

[Axlrod]

I shot several 3 shot groups last year... 3 shots 3 tags punched, 3 shots 3 roosters on the ground

 

[N2TRKYS]

I hope so...I got two coming...couldn't pass them up for $450 on SWFA at the moment.

What did you get?

 

[starsky]

It seems some of you guys will look for any excuse not to shoot more. I always thought shooting was fun...

 

[aclawrence]

This guy is speaking my language. Screw 10 shot groups. Confirm holdovers/scope adjustments at your intended hunting ranges and go kill stuff. I would put way more emphasis on hitting kill zone sized targets at hunting ranges (with your first shot) than obsessing over group size, like some here do.

Why would you assume that "some people here" who obsess over group size do not also obsess over hitting kill zone sized targets at hunting ranges? I would imagine that many of the shooters that fall into this group also spend tons of time shooting their rifles throughout the whole spectrum of "hunting ranges" and are capable of making clean kill shots. Perhaps more capable than the shoot a few 3 shot groups and dial your scope crowd.

 

[16Bore]

Reality check....

How Much Does Group Size Matter? - PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[luke moffat]

What did you get?

Buy SWFA SS 3-15x42 Tactical Rifle Scopes at SWFA.com

 

[Yellowknife]

Reality check....

How Much Does Group Size Matter? - PrecisionRifleBlog.com

For most "hunting" situations vs the PRS style of shooting, it probably matters a good deal less than even that. Which is why I would say its just as (more?) important to fire enough shots to be able to find the actual center of your group and adjust accordingly rather than worry about getting that bragging size group.

Figuring the odds of hitting a target is essentially an exercise in adding the uncertainties of the shot. Adding uncertainties is an entirely different mathematical subject and I'd probably get in over my head pretty quickly. Suffice to say the largest one is the most important and for most of us in the field it's likely not the inherent mechanical precision of the gun.

 

[WRO]

I don't think anybody here is advocating that we should all be shooting 10 shot groups. The value is pretty limited for most people and most guns, and there are also other ways to determine that information (like shooting multiple groups at various ranges, which you presumably HAVE done) I think what Form is trying to explain is the inherent limitations of a 3 shot group. And he is correct. Statistically, it's a very poor measure of precision if all you ever shoot is are those three shots and no others. He's also trying to explain the difference between precision and accuracy, which lots of people don't understand. A true 1/2 MOA gun would be very PRECISE but that doesn't mean is ACCURATE. Was that 1/2 MOA 1000 yd group you shot centered perfectly on the target, or was it a little off? On the flip side, an 2 MOA gun can be very very ACCURATE... but only if enough shots are taken to reasonably determine the center of the group.

Accuracy and Precision

You will need to shoot more with a low precision gun than a high precision gun to get to the same absolute level of "accuracy" i.e. centering the group on the bullseye within a fixed error range. If your gun can really shoot 1/2 MOA for 3 shots every single time, then you don't need 10 shots to have good accuracy.



You are really confusing precision and accuracy there. What if that 1/2 MOA group was 3 ft to the left? Still a dang good group, but you would miss the deer! Just because you can shoot a 1/2 MOA 3 shot group, does NOT mean you can hit a 1/2 MOA target on demand. Or even a 1 MOA target for that matter. I've proven this to myself many times. My main sporter rig will shoot sub MOA 3 shot groups from a bench the vast majority of the time and in fact has many "one hole" 100 yd groups to it's credit. However, it is very very difficult with that gun to go 5 for 5 on a 3" sticker at 300 yds (~1 MOA). 10 for 10 would be impossible, even with it's most favored load. For what I use that gun for, I simply don't care. The main thing is the all shots are within close proximity to point of aim and not consistently high/left or any other place.

Fundamentally, the more samples (shots) you have to measure, the more you know about the precision of the gun and the better you can adjust the accuracy via the scope. However, as has been noted... it's totally irrelevant for most people, including me. Our targets are big and close and the gun/ammo error is much smaller than our environmental or human induced errors in the field. However while 10 shots aren't required... and it's true that 3 shot groups probably cover what you need, I think you might find at least 5 shot groups during sight in will result in less fussing around trying to center groups at longer ranges or wondering why you had to add 2 clicks on the next trip to the range, etc. At least it has for me.


(Side note on the "law of averages" Law of averages - Wikipedia)

I think you're over thinking it. My practice consists of shooting small rocks, coyotes, etc at whatever range I find them. I've probably shot maybe 20 grouping exercises in the last 5 years. That being said I've cold bored coyotes at 800+ regularly, and taken other varmints out to 1200. I try to make my practice mimic hunting situations.

 

[Yellowknife]

I think you're over thinking it. My practice consists of shooting small rocks, coyotes, etc at whatever range I find them. I've probably shot maybe 20 grouping exercises in the last 5 years. That being said I've cold bored coyotes at 800+ regularly, and taken other varmints out to 1200. I try to make my practice mimic hunting situations.

I'm not so much over thinking as trying to explain (perhaps poorly) some well established scientific principles. A single three shot group is a dubious sample size. Practicing in the field quickly adds up to a large sample size. Same same. Better actually. I'm NOT advocating that we all shoot 10 rd groups or do lots of group shooting. I'm saying that a single three round group may or may not tell you what people often think it does. They are fine for some purposes and I've shot plenty of them... just have to understand the limitations. Which is the reason you spend more time doing field rather than group shooting, right? I think we are actually on the same page here.

For the record, I'm not a precision shooter and don't pretend to be. Odds of me hitting a coyote at 800 are about zip. However things like accuracy, precision, sample size, are basic concepts that apply in a huge number of every day things. I deal with those issues regularly and have been burned a few times by sampling issues.

 

[JWP58]

Why would you assume that "some people here" who obsess over group size do not also obsess over hitting kill zone sized targets at hunting ranges? I would imagine that many of the shooters that fall into this group also spend tons of time shooting their rifles throughout the whole spectrum of "hunting ranges" and are capable of making clean kill shots. Perhaps more capable than the shoot a few 3 shot groups and dial your scope crowd.

Because I can? Because in all the shot group obsession you rarely if ever see any discussion on practical field condition shooting practice.....I suppose shooting dozens of 10rds groups is time consuming.

I'm happy for the op. He has a fantastic hunting weapon and see no reason to persuade him to blow 100 bucks in ammo on shooting that has almost zero practical application to hunting.

Op congrats on the new hunting rig, hope you slay plenty of critters with it in 2017.