Shooting Accuracy

[bitbckt]

This is getting pretty deep into the weeds for the OP’s stage of development, but this article is relevant to the group size tangent: https://bisonballistics.com/articles/optimal-group-size-for-rifles

As to whether position shooting matters in hunting situations: Yes, definitely.

But the fundamentals @manitou1 listed can be practiced at the bench just fine, and do translate to position shooting. As a new shooter, I say any trigger time is better than no trigger time, but perfect practice makes perfect. Don’t rush yourself - you’ll pick up bad habits along the way that will be hard to un-learn.

 

[Formidilosus]

I will say I disagree with the guy who said only 5 shot groups count. 5 shot groups are a better indicator for target rifles with heavier barrels but for anything thinner than a #4 contour the heat tends to cause some POI shifting after 2-3 rounds. I don't like taking ten minutes in between shots either.

Here we go....



Properly built rifles do not have “poi shifting” no matter how thin a barrel is, and no matter hot it gets. That is a myth. Uless the rifle needs work (not properly stress relieved barrel, bad bedding) when you see groups “shift”, get larger, etc., what you are seeing is the true grouping capability of the gun. Nothing more.

5 shots isn’t a group either. Grouping is for a probability matrix. Rifles shoot in a cone, they do not shoot in a “hole”. That cone’s size tells one what size target the gun is mechanically capable of hitting, and whether the cone is centered on point of aim (zeroed). That’s it. 3 shot groups were invented to make people feel better- literally. Writers started doing 5 shot groups instead of 10 round groups decades ago when reviewing rifles to make them look better. Same from 5 round groups to 3 round groups. It has nothing to do with reality.

Take your “.65 MOA” rifle, lock it in a vice in an indoor tunnel and fire 100 rounds. It will not be a .65 MOA rifle. If it “averages” .65 MOA, then some rounds are far worse. Those are the rounds you want to know about if hitting matters. I do not care where my best rounds go, I need to know where the worst ones will go.

Statistically your .65 MOA average rifle can only on demand hit a 1.5-1.7 MOA target.



This matters for several reasons. One- 10 round groups show the true cone, and consequently the target size that the rifle will mechanically hit. Two- it shows if there is a mechanical problem with the rifle that needs addressed. Three- it allows a true zero. Fourth- when newer shooters hear “sub MOA all day long” they are being lied to, and can be confused like the OP was.

 

[brsnow]

My hunting rifle loves 140 e-tip factory ammo. It literally cloverleafs @100 regularly. It shoots others “good enough” but the confidence in finding a round it likes has carried over to shooting free hand, off pack, sitting much better. I really wanted to shoot LRX, but it was clear the gun wants a different bullet.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is getting pretty deep into the weeds for the OP’s stage of development, but this article is relevant to the group size tangent: https://bisonballistics.com/articles/optimal-group-size-for-rifles

While better than most articles on group size, he along with most statisticians and math nerds miss the forest for the trees. Mean radius does give more information, however it is information that is useless to 99.99% of hunters and shooters. Group shooting for hitting targets with consequences isn’t about “efficiency”. It’s about certainty.

Also his comment- “within 20% of the true group size with 90% confidence” leaves a lot of possible misses. Grouping and what someone needs from it depends on the task they are doing. We know our task- we have a target of a certian size, at a certain range, what we need to know is what is the probability of hitting it. That starts with mechanical precision. More specifically the worst round possible- not the best, and what is the probability that it is the worst round. Since the round in the chamber is an unknown event (don’t know if it’ll be a “good” one or the “bad” one) we need to work on the information that it will be a “bad” one.

Example-

We have an antelope at 400 yards, slightly quartering too- for ease say a vital zone of 6 inches. So we have a 6” target at 400 yards which for practical purposes is a 1.5 MOA target.


Can your rifle hit that 1.5 MOA target? If so, what’s the probability? Are you willing to accept an 80% probability? 90%? 60%


Fact is, if you use a few 3 shot groups for group size and zeroing and you average “sub MOA”, you will be closer to a 50% probability of hit on that antelope, than a 90%. That’s being generous. That’s because you have compounding errors. The first is that 3 shots, or 5, or 7 (though better) can not tell you where the worst rounds will go. Therefore, as the last post, a “sub MOA” 3 shot rifle is closer to a 1.5-1.8 rifle at best for a 95% probability.
The second source of error, is that because you don’t see the entire cone, you can’t center the cone (group) over Point of aim. Therefore you aren’t actually zeroed, and have now introduced a deviation in that cone from POA.



You can do all that, or you can just shoot a couple of ten round groups, count every round, center those ten rounds over POA, and KNOW what size target you can hit.

 

[bitbckt]

Your bluster was entertaining as usual - and not in conflict with the author of the article at all in my reading - there is a particular confidence (in your case 100%...) that's acceptable on a particular target size at a particular distance, and measuring that confidence (for the OP, that might be 100% @ 100 yards on a 6" target at the moment) is to shoot groups. I don't think we're at all in disagreement as to what the end goal is and how to measure it.

Just to repeat myself though, fundamentals are where the most gains are had for a new shooter - the actual topic of discussion here. Frankly, whether the rifle with that ammo _can_ shoot a 1.5 MOA 10 shot group at 400 is incidental to the reality: the shooter cannot.

 

[Formidilosus]

bitbckt,

There was no rant.

Just to repeat myself though, fundamentals are where the most gains are had for a new shooter - the actual topic of discussion here. Frankly, whether the rifle with that ammo _can_ shoot a 1.5 MOA 10 shot group at 400 is incidental to the reality: the shooter cannot.

Ok, so how does the OP know and measure those fundamentals?

 

[kad11]

While better than most articles on group size, he along with most statisticians and math nerds miss the forest for the trees. Mean radius does give more information, however it is information that is useless to 99.99% of hunters and shooters. Group shooting for hitting targets with consequences isn’t about “efficiency”. It’s about certainty.

Also his comment- “within 20% of the true group size with 90% confidence” leaves a lot of possible misses. Grouping and what someone needs from it depends on the task they are doing. We know our task- we have a target of a certian size, at a certain range, what we need to know is what is the probability of hitting it. That starts with mechanical precision. More specifically the worst round possible- not the best, and what is the probability that it is the worst round. Since the round in the chamber is an unknown event (don’t know if it’ll be a “good” one or the “bad” one) we need to work on the information that it will be a “bad” one.

Example-

We have an antelope at 400 yards, slightly quartering too- for ease say a vital zone of 6 inches. So we have a 6” target at 400 yards which for practical purposes is a 1.5 MOA target.


Can your rifle hit that 1.5 MOA target? If so, what’s the probability? Are you willing to accept an 80% probability? 90%? 60%


Fact is, if you use a few 3 shot groups for group size and zeroing and you average “sub MOA”, you will be closer to a 50% probability of hit on that antelope, than a 90%. That’s being generous. That’s because you have compounding errors. The first is that 3 shots, or 5, or 7 (though better) can not tell you where the worst rounds will go. Therefore, as the last post, a “sub MOA” 3 shot rifle is closer to a 1.5-1.8 rifle at best for a 95% probability.
The second source of error, is that because you don’t see the entire cone, you can’t center the cone (group) over Point of aim. Therefore you aren’t actually zeroed, and have now introduced a deviation in that cone from POA.



You can do all that, or you can just shoot a couple of ten round groups, count every round, center those ten rounds over POA, and KNOW what size target you can hit.

Will the center of the cone shift with different ammo selections? I can see it being larger or smaller as you test different bullets, but I'd think zero would remain constant (given same bullet weight, velocity, roughly same bc, etc)...

 

[Formidilosus]

Will the center of the cone shift with different ammo selections? I can see it being larger or smaller as you test different bullets, but I'd think zero would remain constant...

Absolutely it will shift. Each ammo type exits the muzzle at a different point in it’s oscillation, which changes point of impact.

It is not unusual to see several inches of POI shift between smooth brands/models. Worse than that is POI shifts between different lot numbers of the exact same ammo.

 

[bitbckt]

Ok, so how does the OP know and measure those fundamentals?

Asking is a good way to start knowing. Here are a few ideas I've used to teach others _what_ the fundamentals are:

Control: use a laser bore sight or the cross hairs in the scope, watch for movement during hold or squeeze. The laser is nice for a buddy to watch in a spotter. For severe cases, put a coin on the top turret, hold/squeeze and ensure it doesn't fall off.
Follow-through: setup a camera to self-record during dry and live fire - watch for jerks, steady hold on the trigger after squeeze, eyes closing, &c. Again, a buddy can be very helpful if they aren't jerking at the muzzle blast themselves...

For the first few live rounds (say, 10) of the day, fire single shots at individual targets. Concentrate on sight picture, control, squeeze, follow-through. Ignore where the round lands - the object is self-awareness of the shooting process. Firing at a "new" target each time helps focus the shooter away from previous "failure" or leading the group.

I particularly like to start new shooters off every session on a .22LR, before moving them up to their hunting rifle. That keeps them focused on the parts of the process that matter (themselves) and not the parts that don't (the recoil).

I've found that self-taught shooters in particular tend to just "shoot groups" all day, and build up (correctable!) mental patterns that cause them to feel over-confident at longer ranges, and disappointed when they aren't hitting the gong/rock/animal at distance.

"I don't think we're at all in disagreement as to what the end goal is and how to measure it."

 

[Fatcamp]

Do people shoot tight groupings with hunting rounds vs match type rounds?

It’s not easy in FL to try different positions etc because of the limited ranges and their rules.

Our rifles shoot their hunting ammo well, that's why we use it.

Sucks about practicing alternative positions. It can be done safely at home with snap caps. Better be very concious of what you are doing though.

 

[DamnRinella]

Thanks all. I have been shooting for a few years so not just getting started but also far from experienced. I don’t get a lot of range time in but getting more involved this year.

I feel confident I can shoot at 100 yards and put it within an inch of where I want it. And hit a gong at 300. Just not as precise as I would like with multiple rounds. However I just don’t want my expectations to be too high. As maybe many are just blowing smoke? Or maybe only the people shooting 1in or smaller groupings just put a lot of time in? 10,000 hours type.

I need to use those drills though to see if I am flinching or making some error. Probably am!

Plus this last time I wasn’t using bags. Do people that claim or shoot those groupings always use bags?

 

[OneShot]

I’m also shooting the SPS tactical and have been for a while. In the last year I have swapped out my stock to a Stocky’s Accublock and have added a Trigger Tech trigger. It’s a little on the heavy side now at 11-1/2 pounds.
Was never a fan of the hogue stock, especially with a bi-pod mounted on it. Too much movement in the stock. The trigger was around 3.5lbs and wouldn’t ever go lighter, even when adjusting it. My groups were ok, when running the gun straight out of the box.

In my SPS, with Federal Premium gold medal 168gr SMK, It will shoot 1/2 or smaller most days
The Hornady Match 168 BTHP will stay under an inch with best being a 1/2 inch.

I have a few boxes of Federal Sierra Gameking that I just received a couple days ago. I’m going to get them out to the range and see how they group and shoot some distance with them.

 

[DamnRinella]

I’m also shooting the SPS tactical and have been for a while. In the last year I have swapped out my stock to a Stocky’s Accublock and have added a Trigger Tech trigger. It’s a little on the heavy side now at 11-1/2 pounds.
Was never a fan of the hogue stock, especially with a bi-pod mounted on it. Too much movement in the stock. The trigger was around 3.5lbs and wouldn’t ever go lighter, even when adjusting it. My groups were ok, when running the gun straight out of the box.

In my SPS, with Federal Premium gold medal 168gr SMK, It will shoot 1/2 or smaller most days
The Hornady Match 168 BTHP will stay under an inch with best being a 1/2 inch.

I have a few boxes of Federal Sierra Gameking that I just received a couple days ago. I’m going to get them out to the range and see how they group and shoot some distance with them.

I am using a Harris bipod and the Bell and Carlson BDL M40 stock. The trigger is soon!

Now are you shooting that Grouping in a vice or off bags

 

[OneShot]

Laying down with bi-pod and bag under the butt. But will also swap out the bag for a backpack or a jacket under the butt since that is what I’ll have with me on my hunts.

 

[bitbckt]

Thanks all. I have been shooting for a few years so not just getting started but also far from experienced. I don’t get a lot of range time in but getting more involved this year.

I feel confident I can shoot at 100 yards and put it within an inch of where I want it. And hit a gong at 300. Just not as precise as I would like with multiple rounds. However I just don’t want my expectations to be too high. As maybe many are just blowing smoke? Or maybe only the people shooting 1in or smaller groupings just put a lot of time in? 10,000 hours type.

I need to use those drills though to see if I am flinching or making some error. Probably am!

Hey, that’s great! I don’t mean to undersell your ability at all - just interpreting what I read best I can. I hope you’re having a great time and improving every time you’re at the range, or out in the field.

There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors on the Internet. It can be hard to see through it all.

 

[Northwinds308]

Here we go....



Properly built rifles do not have “poi shifting” no matter how thin a barrel is, and no matter hot it gets. That is a myth. Uless the rifle needs work (not properly stress relieved barrel, bad bedding) when you see groups “shift”, get larger, etc., what you are seeing is the true grouping capability of the gun. Nothing more.

5 shots isn’t a group either. Grouping is for a probability matrix. Rifles shoot in a cone, they do not shoot in a “hole”. That cone’s size tells one what size target the gun is mechanically capable of hitting, and whether the cone is centered on point of aim (zeroed). That’s it. 3 shot groups were invented to make people feel better- literally. Writers started doing 5 shot groups instead of 10 round groups decades ago when reviewing rifles to make them look better. Same from 5 round groups to 3 round groups. It has nothing to do with reality.

Take your “.65 MOA” rifle, lock it in a vice in an indoor tunnel and fire 100 rounds. It will not be a .65 MOA rifle. If it “averages” .65 MOA, then some rounds are far worse. Those are the rounds you want to know about if hitting matters. I do not care where my best rounds go, I need to know where the worst ones will go.

Statistically your .65 MOA average rifle can only on demand hit a 1.5-1.7 MOA target.



This matters for several reasons. One- 10 round groups show the true cone, and consequently the target size that the rifle will mechanically hit. Two- it shows if there is a mechanical problem with the rifle that needs addressed. Three- it allows a true zero. Fourth- when newer shooters hear “sub MOA all day long” they are being lied to, and can be confused like the OP was.

No no, hold on a second. I didn't say heat would cause the group size to increase, but heat most certainly does cause a POI shift. If it didn't then recording cold bore shots would be irrelevant, but it's not. I've seen rifles shoot up to 0.5 MOA shift from cold bore to not consistently.

So if we're dealing with a rifle that will produce mechanically 1 MOA, and the hot barrel causes an upward POI shift, then as the barrel heats the cone will trend upwards. It's not expanding in size but the MPI is shifting, causing the gun to "walk". If you can explain how I watched 30 well-maintained and tested rifles all exhibit this phenomenon this week I'd love to hear it.

This is demonstrated in enough guns that I don't buy it being a flawed barrel or bedding in ALL of them. If it was irrelevant then why don't more competitive shooters run lighter barrels? The heavier barrels have more consistent harmonics, but they're not necessarily more mechanically more accurate than hunting rifles if the hunting rifles are allowed to cool.

So at what point does 0.65 MOA stop being that as an average? If there mechanically a difference between shooting a 300 shot string with even barrel temperatures between shots, or shooting 100 3 shot groups that have a maximum spread of .68 and a minimum spread of .62? I don't see how your numbers add up claiming that 3 shot groups are a feel good but 10 shot groups aren't when either could be conducted the same way to the same standard. One group is an outlier. Ten groups is a pattern.

I'm really not sure how you got 1.5 to 1.7 MOA "on demand" when the rifle has demonstrated better accuracy at all ranges over the course of 500 rounds. I'd be worrying more about the ability to make accurate wind call for 99% of shooters than trying to claim that 80-90% of rifles are really actually 2 MOA rifles because they don't shoot ten round strings.

 

[DamnRinella]

Hey, that’s great! I don’t mean to undersell your ability at all - just interpreting what I read best I can. I hope you’re having a great time and improving every time you’re at the range, or out in the field.

There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors on the Internet. It can be hard to see through it all.

I didn’t take it that way at all. Just stated this as I read a lot and listen to shooting podcasts etc. Getting into the weeds via this discussion won’t confuse me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Apologies to the OP of you are not interested in this side bar. However, I am going to address below because myths and bad information cause more misses and frustration than all real world variables combined.

Because we’re not on a range face to face some clarity of how and why I say what I do. I work at a unique place. So far this year I have directly witnessed just shy of 400,000 rounds fired, 90% of those being recorded for score/time/group/zero. I have exceeded 60,000 rounds personally since Jan 1, and I’m on barrel replacement #8 I believe for rifles.

No no, hold on a second. I didn't say heat would cause the group size to increase, but heat most certainly does cause a POI shift. If it didn't then recording cold bore shots would be irrelevant, but it's not. I've seen rifles shoot up to 0.5 MOA shift from cold bore to not consistently.

From here on out I am speaking to rifles that have a solid bedding, barrels that are properly stress relieved, optics that correctly function.....


“Cold bore” shifts are a myth. What people think “cold bore” shots are, are almost always cold shooter. Now, CLEAN bore shifts can be, and are real. However, if a barrel is not cleaned, the cold bore shot will fall within its true cone. If it doesn’t- there most certainly is a problem with the gun system. This is not an opinion. Take the rifle out in in a vice or machine rest. Fire 30 rounds straight. Mark target. Let barrel completely cool. Fire one cold bore round. That round will land inside the first 30 shots. If it does not, there is something wrong with the rifle.
Then, fire 30 cold bore shots from the machine. Those cold bore shots will NOT form a “hole” in a different location. Those 30 cold bore shots will be statistically identical in size and location to the 30 fired back to back. If they are not there is stress in the system somewhere. I.E.- the gun needs to be fixed.


Since you believe that in a properly built rifle, with stress free barrel and bedding, there will be a cold bore shift- first shot of the day, but shot number 2 and all subsequent shots from the group will land in a different place on target, which means that we would have two separate groups on target if we repeated this multiple times- what is the mechanical reason that this happens?


Mechanically what causes a stress free system to move between shot number 1, and shot number 2?

So if we're dealing with a rifle that will produce mechanically 1 MOA, and the hot barrel causes an upward POI shift, then as the barrel heats the cone will trend upwards. It's not expanding in size but the MPI is shifting, causing the gun to "walk". If you can explain how I watched 30 well-maintained and tested rifles all exhibit this phenomenon this week I'd love to hear it.

I have no idea how “30 well-maintained and tested rifles” are so messed up that they all exhibit “walking” due to heat. I would start by changing brands/gunsmiths.

This is demonstrated in enough guns that I don't buy it being a flawed barrel or bedding in ALL of them. If it was irrelevant then why don't more competitive shooters run lighter barrels? The heavier barrels have more consistent harmonics, but they're not necessarily more mechanically more accurate than hunting rifles if the hunting rifles are allowed to cool.

This is incorrect. In large numbers stiffer barrels ARE more precise than less stiff barrels due to harmonics. The difference isn’t massive though, and in hunting rifles where true 2 MOA precision will kill every BG animals walking to 600 yards it doesn’t really matter. The difference in a number 1 contour barrel fired from a machine test, and a number 7 isn’t huge- around .2-.3 MOA for statistically relevant group sizes. That is swallowed up in errors in a 7-8lb rifle.

However, if you are a competitor than it does matter.

So at what point does 0.65 MOA stop being that as an average? If there mechanically a difference between shooting a 300 shot string with even barrel temperatures between shots, or shooting 100 3 shot groups that have a maximum spread of .68 and a minimum spread of .62? I don't see how your numbers add up claiming that 3 shot groups are a feel good but 10 shot groups aren't when either could be conducted the same way to the same standard. One group is an outlier. Ten groups is a pattern.

Yes, .65 MOA is an average of 5 three round groups, but it is not the size target that your rifle will mechanically hit. Shooting 5x3 round groups and averaging is only useful for comparing against other rifles shooting 5 three round groups and averaging. As far as useful information... not so much. Granted that is far better than the vast majority do, but grouping for practical purposes should be giving us information that feeds into our decision process for shooting. Mainly for determining probability of hits. Otherwise it’s ballistic and mental masterbation.

You have a rifle that averages .65 MOA for 5 three round groups. Now I know because of tens of thousands of test shots that I can use that info to hit targets and have a decent idea of what it’ll do. But for most, when they hear “.65 MOA” and they miss a 1 MOA target, what do they do? Did they miss, or is there something wrong with the rifle? How do they adjust and hit with the next round? What’s the probability of hitting with the next round? They don’t know and will most likely come to a wrong conclusion based on faulty information. Your rifle may average .65 MOA for 5 three round groups, but it will not on demand hit a .65 MOA target. That is not how it works. The reason you are averaging those 5 groups, is to eliminate the bad rounds that you don’t like. If it wasn’t, then you would just count the two worst shots from those 15 rounds, or come up with a probability of hit. I.E.- 90% of round fired will fall within 1.5 MOA (thats about the probability of your .65 MOA rifle is).

Unless you shoot all 5x3 round groups to the exact same target, same exact POA/POI and measure all 15 rounds (that would be a 15 round group then), you are not accounting for the reality of random variation within the cone of fire, and the fact that statistically the next shot is more likely to land close to the last shot, rather than farther away. It’s giving you a false sense of capability.

I'm really not sure how you got 1.5 to 1.7 MOA "on demand" when the rifle has demonstrated better accuracy at all ranges over the course of 500 rounds. I'd be worrying more about the ability to make accurate wind call for 99% of shooters than trying to claim that 80-90% of rifles are really actually 2 MOA rifles because they don't shoot ten round strings.

I’m not trying to claim anything. The vast majority of guns aren’t even 2 MOA rifles. On demand means just that- on demand. Hit “x” size target with a huge penalty if you miss. Now do it 10, 20, 30 times in a row. What size target will all of those shots land in? It isn’t .65 MOA.

I got 1.5-1.7 MOA, because I am talking about the size target the gun will mechanically hit with 95+% of rounds. Everything has a probability attached to it due to statistical variation. Everything. 30 shots, whether 10 three round groups on the same target, 6 five round groups, 3 ten round groups, or just 30 rounds straight is somewhere above 95% certainty. A single 10 round group is about 85% certainty that the 11th round will land inside the first 10.



Here is the data sheet from a random rifle I just pulled up that was tested at the worlds top ballistic research facility using very high quality match ammo. 3 shot groups were not logged because in their words “it’s waste of time”. But, because it was shot on an acoustic target, we did track the first three rounds of every 5 round group, and it averaged right at .9 MOA for 5x3 rounds.


This is the average of 5x5 round group fired at 100 yards, with discounting the worse group (facilities standard). With all 5 groups it averaged 1.44”. The barrel was cooled down to ambient temperature for each 5 round group.





Here is the same rifle for 3x10 round groups, cooled between each-






Same but 30 rounds straight (note starting and ending barrel temp)-




Now what do you want to bet that those 5x5 round groups did not land to the exact same point of impact on target? Do you think that the cold bore shots from each group landed in a different place than subsequent shots? Do you think that all rounds fired landed within the 2.72” thirty round group (since it’s the largest)?

Not hardly.

That barrel then had 15 more rounds fired through it to make 100 shots. All 100 shots are here-





The cold bore shots were not the worse, or best of any of the 100 rounds fired. Can you show where the cold bore shots are? Can you show the “walking” that occurred during the 30 shot group where the barrel temperature reached 240 degrees?


The real question is, is this rifle a .9 MOA rifle (5x3 round groups) or a 3.11 MOA rifle....?


Cont....

 

[Formidilosus]

This is not isolated.

Below is the very next gun/barrel that was tested after then one above. Same exact protocol.


5x5 round groups. All averaged to 1.39” (note that the barrel above is more “accurate” than this one in 5x5 grouping). Also it’s 5x3 rounds groups averaged to right at .7 MOA-




3x10 rounds-





30 round group-




Then 15 rounds to make 100.



As above, do you think there were different POI’s for cold bore rounds? Walking due to 215 degree barrel temp?



All 100 rounds-




Is this a .7 MOA rifle (5x3 rounds)? Or a 2.33 MOA rifle?


For those who are paying attention more than 90% of rounds fell within 1.6’ish MOA. Which also happens to be its worst of 3 ten rounds groups....




One can go through all of this if they want to, or need to know the real hitting ability of thier gun.... or they can just just a couple 10 round groups. Doing so shows you more about your load, rifle, scope, and zero than anything else you will do. It all but eliminates all the “weird” things that happen.

That last gun is one of my current rifle/barrels. 9 out of 10 rounds will hit a 1.5 MOA target. When it misses a 1.5 MOA target about one out of ten, it’s ok. I know that it’s not a true 1 MOA gun, and therefor do not start doubting or looking for problems. The same is applied to a hunting rifle. If you’re shooting deer at 200 yards- who cares. Literally a 4 MOA gun will be fine. However, if you are shooting further and further- the true accuracy starts to matter more and more. Eliminating variables is the name of the game for consistency, and knowing true precision and zero location are some of the first steps to that.

 

[skywalkr]

Fascinating stuff Form, thanks for posting. I work in the statistics/analytics world so that kind of information is really cool to me.