Kimber Subalpine experience?

[Bobbyboe]

I just don't think it's worth bashing each other over these topics. There are many people on this site, who have vast amounts of experience that most people can learn from. Form is of them. I do know that he constantly speaks about 10 shot groups being a baseline. In my opinion there is merit to this, espiclly when talking about long range hunting and guaranteed hits. Form has provided studies that show hit/miss probabilities. This is great information if you take the time to digest it.

I do know for certain that 3 shot groups are almost always smaller than 5 shot groups. To me, 3 shot groups just make you feel good. For example. With my fieldcraft I was recently testing some hand loads. A 42 gr charge of Varget produced a .230" group. The next two shots opened up to 1". So, is it a 1/4" gun or a 1" gun?

- - - Updated - - -

In addition, if guys keep shitting on these clearly knowledgeable members, they'll just stop posting. I, for one, appreciate their posts.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I know form uses 10-shot groups as a standard and since trying it, I dont have nearly as many "moa" rifles as i thought i did .

What I do know is out of the kimbers I own and the several others I've been around they shoot well enough for my hunting. Early kimbers, especially in the 8400 wsm auctions had some real feeding issues. It's been a long time however since I've heard of some major issues with the gun. CS has been questionable for me at times....

I still believe kimbers are some of the best values for the money on the market, second only to maybe the old t3's before the price climbed.

 

[mt100gr.]

There is obviously a discrepancy when it comes to what a "group" is. For marketing purposes, 3 shots is ideal! For the "feel good" guys who measure every group and take pics, again, 3 is fun. If those same rifles can shoot every single bullet to exact point of aim every time, that's awesome. In that case, why not post up some 10 or 20 round groups?

What I have learned in the last few years of shooting is that a rifle is either sub MOA or it isnt. That doesn't mean it isn't accurate enough for some hunting applications but some stack bullets in a ragged hole and some dont. I have chased the last tiny improvements on rifles that just aren't capable of better. And after looking at it from a more humbled position, I accept that even some of my favorites (see expensive) will spread out to 1 inch plus as I pass the 10 round mark at 100 yards. I'm still happy with them when I can put 10 rounds on a 9 inch plate at 600 yards with good conditions. Or 10 rounds on a 12 inch plate with more challenging conditions. Hell, sometimes I even miss.

 

[Sodbuster]

I have one of the first Montana 300 WSMs as well. Handloads got its accuracy under control. The 24hourcampfire tune up turned it into a sweet lightweight thumper. Right out of the box it was not what it was advertised to be.

I haven't seen a Subalpine around here.

 

[mtmuley]

There is obviously a discrepancy when it comes to what a "group" is. For marketing purposes, 3 shots is ideal! For the "feel good" guys who measure every group and take pics, again, 3 is fun. If those same rifles can shoot every single bullet to exact point of aim every time, that's awesome. In that case, why not post up some 10 or 20 round groups?

What I have learned in the last few years of shooting is that a rifle is either sub MOA or it isnt. That doesn't mean it isn't accurate enough for some hunting applications but some stack bullets in a ragged hole and some dont. I have chased the last tiny improvements on rifles that just aren't capable of better. And after looking at it from a more humbled position, I accept that even some of my favorites (see expensive) will spread out to 1 inch plus as I pass the 10 round mark at 100 yards. I'm still happy with them when I can put 10 rounds on a 9 inch plate at 600 yards with good conditions. Or 10 rounds on a 12 inch plate with more challenging conditions. Hell, sometimes I even miss.

Yep. mtmuley

 

[belly-deep]

In addition, if guys keep shitting on these clearly knowledgeable members, they'll just stop posting. I, for one, appreciate their posts.

So if I report on my observations I’m “shitting” on someone? Rokslide is the truly the snowflake’s haven.

For the record, yes I’m talking about 3 shot groups. Nobody ever specified otherwise. Usually if someone is referring to a different shot count, they will point that out.

 

[Bobbyboe]

So if I report on my observations I’m “shitting” on someone? Rokslide is the truly the snowflake’s haven.

Nope, rokslide is a great site with tons of knowledgeable be people. If you want snowflake haven, then visit Monstermuleys.com.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don’t care what people shoot, or how many shots. I’m not saying someone needs a “sub MOA ten shot group” rifle to hunt. Not even close. I have rifles I hunt with that have never been shot at paper more than twice because what I’m going to use them for doesn’t require it. But I also don’t go around and talk about how “accurate” they are- because I have no idea.


Group shoting is used used for three things-

1) Bragging to buddies/the internet

2) Comparing loads

3) As a measure of what size target the rifle can mechanically hit.



Thats it.


In that use, for #1 don’t ever shoot more than three shots. That’s the only way to get those “.5 MOA all day long.... if I do my partt” rifles. For #2 & 3, three shots it a useless exercise. It can not tel you in any way, whether a load/rifle is good, and only if the three shots are horrible can it tell you if it’s bad. This is a statistical FACT. Three shots is not relevant. Those three rounds are not enough to show you the variation, SD, or extreme spread of where any one round will land.

Take your rifle. Zero it. Shoot three rounds aiming at center. Wait. Short three more rounds. Wait. Shoot three more rounds. Wait. Shoot three more. I’ll bet that each three round “group” looks good. You’ll notice that the center of each group is different between each group even though you haven’t touched the sights. You’ll also probably have one really good 3 round group (that’s the one everybody remembers and says the gun can do), one really bad group, and two medium groups.

The size of the four 3 round groups on one target is the accuracy of the rifle.

For the record, yes I’m talking about 3 shot groups. Nobody ever specified otherwise. Usually if someone is referring to a different shot count, they will point that out.

So we can say with absolute certainty- a fact, that your Kimbers can not hit sub MOA targets on demand. If you are using three shot groups as your barometer, it is a statistical impossibility to do it.



This this is easily proven. If your “average” 3 shot group is .75 MOA, take ten .75” dots and place them at 100 yards. Then without excuses, I.E.- “whoopsies”, “butterfly on the target”, “I sneezed”, etc.- no excuses or group reduction techniques.... hit all ten .75” dots one after the other. No misses. If you you have a “sub MOA rifle”. Than it will hit sub MOA targets shot, after shot, after shot, after shot, after shot. Otherwise- it isn’t a sub MOA rifle.




It makes no sense to say “my rifle is x accurate” if it can’t hit “x” size target.

 

[TNHunter]

Thanks fellas for the information... I haven’t pulled the trigger on the Subalpine yet... just picked up a Barrett Fieldcraft 6.5 but still itching to get another rifle... so still thinking about the Subalpine... can’t have enough rifles I believe... Rokslide is my trusted source for info no doubt ... Merry Christmas from Nashville


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TNHunter]

Yea ... couldn’t resist ... too good of a deal... so we will see how it does... just hope I don’t have any problems with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnnyR]

Yea ... couldn’t resist ... too good of a deal... so we will see how it does... just hope I don’t have any problems with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let us know how it goes! I, too, have been interested in the Kimber.

 

[NJDiverDan]

Ok, I am a complete novice when it comes to rifles and how to measure its accuracy. I totally agree with Form on the statistics side of things. Please help me understand from the practical side. In your test of shooting 4 sets of 3, I am guessing the wait is for the barrel to cool? What about cleaning? Typically, I am mostly concerned with the first shot from a clean barrel. In archery, we do one shot challenges. Cold no warm up to represent the hunting situations. With rifle hunting, wouldn't I be shooting that shot from a clean / cold barrel? So, for your second part about taking the 10, 0.75" dots, shouldn't I be cleaning the rifle after each shot to assure the clean / cold accuracy that I would have for that first shot at and animal?

Again, thank you to everyone who inputs on this. Being a rifle novice, I have tons to learn. I am thinking about upgrading to a "better" rifle, but really do not know what would make one better than what I have.

 

[JohnnyR]

There is some great material on your questions at Long Range Hunting Forum

Ok, I am a complete novice when it comes to rifles and how to measure its accuracy. I totally agree with Form on the statistics side of things. Please help me understand from the practical side. In your test of shooting 4 sets of 3, I am guessing the wait is for the barrel to cool? What about cleaning? Typically, I am mostly concerned with the first shot from a clean barrel. In archery, we do one shot challenges. Cold no warm up to represent the hunting situations. With rifle hunting, wouldn't I be shooting that shot from a clean / cold barrel? So, for your second part about taking the 10, 0.75" dots, shouldn't I be cleaning the rifle after each shot to assure the clean / cold accuracy that I would have for that first shot at and animal?

Again, thank you to everyone who inputs on this. Being a rifle novice, I have tons to learn. I am thinking about upgrading to a "better" rifle, but really do not know what would make one better than what I have.

 

[NJDiverDan]

thanks Johnny. Sorry for the highjack

 

[JohnnyR]

thanks Johnny. Sorry for the highjack

Not at all an issue! Great website, that one. Stuff here, too, but riflery aspects can be a deep well to drink from and there are some excellent primers therein. Good luck!

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok, I am a complete novice when it comes to rifles and how to measure its accuracy. I totally agree with Form on the statistics side of things. Please help me understand from the practical side. In your test of shooting 4 sets of 3, I am guessing the wait is for the barrel to cool? What about cleaning? Typically, I am mostly concerned with the first shot from a clean barrel. In archery, we do one shot challenges. Cold no warm up to represent the hunting situations. With rifle hunting, wouldn't I be shooting that shot from a clean / cold barrel? So, for your second part about taking the 10, 0.75" dots, shouldn't I be cleaning the rifle after each shot to assure the clean / cold accuracy that I would have for that first shot at and animal?

Again, thank you to everyone who inputs on this. Being a rifle novice, I have tons to learn. I am thinking about upgrading to a "better" rifle, but really do not know what would make one better than what I have.

Just shoot. There’s plenty of discussions on this forum that have talked about it, but most of the beliefs in the shooting and hunting community about cleaning/break in/etc. are myths passed down for so long that everyone “knows” they’re correct. Try to find people that have done extensive grouping tests using relevant group sizes without cleaning is almost impossible. Everyone just knows you need to clean, so they clean. They never actually see if accuracy falls off.

I havent cleaned a barrel in years. My competition 308 has more than 6,000 documented rounds through it without ever so much as a patch going through it. It’s average ten round group is a hole at 100 yards.

 

[JWP58]

Is it possible that the "have to clean" mentality is an old holdover from the black powder days? BP is so much more corrosive than modern powders, it probably was required to clean a gun after every outing....not the case now.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is it possible that the "have to clean" mentality is an old holdover from the black powder days? BP is so much more corrosive than modern powders, it probably was required to clean a gun after every outing....not the case now.

Absolutely. As well as bench rest, and “my daddy always said take care of your tools”.

The reason that most most of these unproven myths still stand is because people attach themselves to the item, rather than the task. Ie- spend a lot of time playing with rifles at a bench, rather than shooting them into replacement.

 

[JohnnyR]

Maybe I read into his post too much. I took his question to involve much more than merits of how to sight in a rifle. Field marksmanship can be hijacked pretty quickly by ingrained shooting habits.

Absolutely. As well as bench rest, and “my daddy always said take care of your tools”.

The reason that most most of these unproven myths still stand is because people attach themselves to the item, rather than the task. Ie- spend a lot of time playing with rifles at a bench, rather than shooting them into replacement.

 

[NJDiverDan]

Thanks again everyone for the comments. I am one of those that it has been ingrained to clean my rifles after every shooting session. Sounds a lot like this may be wasted effort. The other side of all this is that cleaned or not, most rifles are more accurate than I will ever be...so there's that.