How much can i expect handloading to change the accuracy with a given bullet? And what are the performance of the average factory rifle with a variety

[ResearchinStuff]

Also, what's the moa of a 1 shot group? Isn't it zero by definition?

 

[Maverick1]

Thread is a dumpster fire.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Thread is a dumpster fire.

beyond a dumpster fire…. but really the only thing that pisses me off is how long the title of the thread is.


How I imagine some of the people on this thread zero at the range.

 

[Formidilosus]

beyond a dumpster fire…. but really the only thing that really pisses me off is how long the title of the thread is.


How I imagine some of the people on this thread zero at the range.

View attachment 586292

Why you gotta put my picture up?

 

[Vern400]

I am currently learning and working through this problem. My .308 shoots good enough to hunt with, but I'm not happy with a 1.5" gun. So I am reloading and trying different bullets and seating depth. The problem is that bullets are very expensive. So is powder. Guys talk about trying 10 different bullets to find what works, I don't have $500 to $700 laying around to buy a bunch of options so it's very slow going.

On top of that, much like the question you are asking, I have no idea if the gun will ever shoot better or if it's just a lemon. So I buy a box of bullets when I can. Now I'm on to changing powders too. I wish there was an easy button. Some will say that there is and its to buy a Tikka. I'm considering it.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

If you'd like a few ideas you can contact me directly if the forum allows it. 308 tends to be fairly forgiving, but some guns simply don't like secant ogive bullets. Honestly there are a lot of 1.5 moa rifles that get defended by "OH that was a flyer". And 3 shot groups can only prove you're BAD so there's a lot of fudging going on. Your call.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

In a hunting rifle, the only sub MOA shot that matters is the first shot, cold barrel.

Your laws of statistics (whatever that means) are irrelevant when only one shot matters and it needs to be within whatever MOA at the distance you're shooting at. A group with as many data points is irrelevant when only one shot matters.

A hunting rifle's target is an aim point on the target animal. How far you miss that aimpoint matters only once...

Honestly, if these are your true beliefs, and you’re not just trolling, after all the information and examples you’ve been given, there’s no helping you. For the sake of going a little deeper one last time, I have a few questions.

1- given your belief one shot is “good enough” to determine that a rifle is ready to go and kill things, are you saying if you pulled a brand new rifle off the shelf, threw a scope on it, and happened to hit the bullseye the first shot, you’d be satisfied and put it away until hunting season?

2- if the accuracy of your aim point only matters once when shooting at an animal, how would you know what adjustments to make if you missed, hit it in the guts, or otherwise wounded it? You’ve only shot the rifle one time, and you have no idea if it’s shooting left, right, up, down, etc…. This is because that one bullseye could have been totally random. You wouldn’t have any idea of the probability of hitting your original aim point on a follow up shot.

Your arguments makes zero sense, and if you don’t acknowledge the power and relevancy of statistics then you’re a lost cause.

 

[Overdrive]

What are you talking about?

Your response to my previous post, your pretty quick to discredited variables that happen all the time with shooting.

 

[Overdrive]

I think you're missing the point that Form and others are trying to communicate. The purpose of shooting "large" groups helps identify and eliminate the variables that a guy can control. Shooting mechanics, equipment deficiencies, and cartridge components can all be tested and improved. The more you sweat the details and manage/eliminate variables you can control from the bench, the less you have to worry about them on the hunt. Then you can focus on the things you can't control like the weather, angles, etc...

Form and others have also written extensively on Rokslide about practical field shooting positions and offered tips for using things like trekking poles as well as backpacks, puffy coats, etc..., to provide steady shooting platforms in the wild when nothing else is available.

The guys offering advice and evidence-based recommendations do so for the benefit of folks on this site with less experience and expertise (me). They provide science-based truth and in many cases hard facts vs. the authority, tradition, or dogma-based platitudes and theories espoused by some on here that have listened to some of the "authorities" in popular magazines and media. Some guys on here are too stubborn or have egos that are too fragile to look at anything that contradicts their closely held "truths". I'm 48 years old and was one of those guys when i first joined the site, and after reading, arguing, and reading some more, I've realized that clinging to tradition vs. embracing reality only hurts me and those I'm mentoring.

There are no cults of personalities on this site. Rather, there are some guys that shoot pallets of ammo every year across muliptle weapons systems, optics, ranges, and terrain that are happy to share their data for free.

I understand it just fine, I never discredited the more is better for a sample grouping. I simply brought to point that variables play a role in any rifle accuracy. If they didn't then why would so many people be relying on shooting apps to make these adjustments?

 

[stanginthe11s]

Nobody is denying the first 3 shots are part of the picture, they just are not the whole picture with any reasonable level of confidence in most folks' hunting rifles unless they shoot very poorly or very well.

what's funny about this is that my original comment made no sense, and as I said, "to stir the pot". clearly it worked very well because everyone is so busy being "right" that they can't even read lol.
at no time in this thread did I say anything about group size one way or the other.

Physics. Recognized and established by ballisticians and engineers. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of them, but designing tests and repeating them multiple times to prove what's fact and disprove theories is kind of their forte.

there is no physics in determining cone size, so I don't know where you got that from. since you want to bring physics into this, let me ask you how you determined that only YOUR physics is what matters? clearly you have determined that certain parts of physics are no longer valid, or do you just refuse to believe that acoustics and thermal dynamics are physics?
accept it or not, heat, sound waves etc. all play a part in shooting. these things are for the most part, out of our control in real life situations.

I had a simple question that could not be answered. what is the reasoning behind showing all these groups and asking which is which? clearly, they are all different unless you're blind. I don't need to guess, why don't you guys tell everyone. if you're trying to prove there's no difference then show pictures of groups with no differences.

to stir the pot even more, some of the best shooters and ballisticians wear tan hats backwards while shooting, physics has proven group size is directly related to this trait.

 

[Overdrive]

Do you realize who you said this to?

Does it matter who I said that too? Isn't this a discussion forum? I highly doubt he'll loose sleep over it nor will I.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The groups are the same bro. The same.

 

[stanginthe11s]

Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thermal conductivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thermal expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

here's your proof that you seem to refuse to accept. read it all, learn, then come back and tell us all that science is wrong.

 

[Maverick1]

 

[LCV]

or do you just refuse to believe that acoustics and thermal dynamics are physics?

Would it be fair to assume you aren’t an expert in “thermal dynamics”?

 

[grfox92]

Would it be fair to assume you aren’t an expert in “thermal dynamics”?

Like maybe thermal dynamics is happening but not going to affect the accuracy of a stress relieved barrel?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[LCV]

Like maybe thermal dynamics is happening but not going to affect the accuracy of a stress relieved barrel?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

Maybe, But I was poking fun. It’s thermodynamics.

 

[Harvey_NW]

 

[stanginthe11s]

lol, I need to hire a meme master.

repeatedly stating that heat has no bearing on cone size and then posting a meme that states heat has a bearing on cone size.
who's confused here? which is it, heat matters or it doesn't matter. pick one please.
and please tell the world how physics told you what cone size was acceptable to you. you are the one who determines what cone you want, not physics.

this is an entire thread of people who can't read and only make assumptions on what they didn't read. insanity I tell you. if there was a board game called "jump to conclusions" you guys would be world champs lol.
still waiting for the answer for the 1 question I asked. guess it was too simple.

 

[PathFinder]

lol, I need to hire a meme master.

repeatedly stating that heat has no bearing on cone size and then posting a meme that states heat has a bearing on cone size.
who's confused here? which is it, heat matters or it doesn't matter. pick one please.
and please tell the world how physics told you what cone size was acceptable to you. you are the one who determines what cone you want, not physics.

this is an entire thread of people who can't read and only make assumptions on what they didn't read. insanity I tell you. if there was a board game called "jump to conclusions" you guys would be world champs lol.
still waiting for the answer for the 1 question I asked. guess it was too simple.

You've demonstrated you're not an expert in the field, but I'll ask anyways.

1. How much does the temperature of the barrel increase in a 10 round group?
2. How much does that change the dimensions of the barrel? How do you calculate that change?
3. Will you present your data set to support your hypothesis?

You've presented a theory, nothing more. Without data it's scientifically incomplete. Others have provided data that isn't in any way incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics, it's just contrary to your theory.

 

[grfox92]

Maybe, But I was poking fun. It’s thermodynamics.

Ehhhh, thermodynamics, shmermodydamics.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk