Show Off Your Tikka T3/T3X Groups

[ETtikka]

What are the actual benefits of 3 to 5 round groups over groups with more shots in them?

I didn’t say there were benefits, just the fact that smaller groups and point of aim accuracy are more relative to hunting and the first shot counts, maybe a follow up shot, but not 10, hopefully

shooting dozens of shots will benefit the evaluation of the gun and shooter as I mentioned, please refer to last line of my previous post

 

[Bubblehide]

Wrong he was baited into it by someone who felt the need to prove his intelligence. He could have simply replied with the answer to his own question and it would have saved all of us from having to read the back and forth high-school debate. Everyone is out here to prove a point that there gun knowledge dick is bigger than all others instead of helping.

Wrong, he took him through the necessary cognitive process to guide him to the correct conclusion, bringing others along the same CV process. If he just provided an answer it would have been disputed creating a longer hostile process, just like you created here with your last sentence.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I didn’t say there were benefits, just the fact that smaller groups and point of aim accuracy are more relative to hunting and the first shot counts, maybe a follow up shot, but not 10, hopefully

shooting dozens of shots will benefit the evaluation of the gun and shooter as I mentioned, please refer to last line of my previous post

I guess I'll join the pissing match. This isn't necessarily directed at you

The point of a 10 round (or larger) group is to better determine where the first shot is actually going to land relative to the point of aim. If the concern for not doing 10 round groups (or larger) is heat, shoot 10 (or more) rounds with plenty of time for the barrel to cool at the same point of aim. It's unlikely that those rounds are going to be all in the same hole because of the cone of accuracy your rifle is capable of.

The same could be done with those group measuring apps that takes into account your point of aim. That way you could record all of your 3 round groups and measure them from your point of aim to determine statistically how accurate your rifle is relative to your point of aim, which is very important when hunting/shooting in general.

Another similar point that's trying to be made is that most will find that a 10 round group fired with little to no cooling will be nearly the same as a 10 round group with unlimited cooling. This is because a properly made stress relieved barrel and assembled rifle shouldn't have issues with that many rounds consecutively.

I'll conclude by saying if your rifle shoots 3 rounds into .5 MOA every time you shoot, but randomly varies where the 3 rounds impact from your point of aim, you don't have a .5 MOA rifle.

 

[ETtikka]

I guess I'll join the pissing match. This isn't necessarily directed at you

The point of a 10 round (or larger) group is to better determine where the first shot is actually going to land relative to the point of aim. If the concern for not doing 10 round groups (or larger) is heat, shoot 10 (or more) rounds with plenty of time for the barrel to cool at the same point of aim. It's unlikely that those rounds are going to be all in the same hole because of the cone of accuracy your rifle is capable of.

The same could be done with those group measuring apps that takes into account your point of aim. That way you could record all of your 3 round groups and measure them from your point of aim to determine statistically how accurate your rifle is relative to your point of aim, which is very important when hunting/shooting in general.

Another similar point that's trying to be made is that most will find that a 10 round group fired with little to no cooling will be nearly the same as a 10 round group with unlimited cooling. This is because a properly made stress relieved barrel and assembled rifle shouldn't have issues with that many rounds consecutively.

I'll conclude by saying if your rifle shoots 3 rounds into .5 MOA every time you shoot, but randomly varies where the 3 rounds impact from your point of aim, you don't have a .5 MOA rifle.

Agreed, my only point that started this whole mess is that skinny barrels heat up quicker, no matter if they are "stress relieved" or not, and that heat makes metal expand non-uniformly. Heat can be removed from the equation as you mentioned.

a 10 shot group with ALOT of cooling time between shots will tell you a whole lot more than 10 consecutive shots if your purpose is hunting

 

[Formidilosus]

So each rifle has a "cone" and the way to find that cone is to shoot your rifle till the barrel is hot. If the first 3 shots are 1moa and the others aren't doesn't that mean the heat had effect?

No, it means that every rifle has a “cone”, and with a properly stress relieved barrel it makes no difference whether it’s shot one round at a time slowly, or ten (or x number of rounds) quickly. The heat does not have a measurable effect.

The heat will have an effect if there is something wrong with the rifle system- so introduce heat to find out, and do not give excuses for poor performance.

Do prs shooters just shoot till they are out of ammo or do they let the rifle cool at all?

Courses of fire can and will have 15-20 rounds fired in a short period of time. In practice heat mitigation has more to do with throat life than actual precision

Wrong he was baited into it by someone who felt the need to prove his intelligence. He could have simply replied with the answer to his own question and it would have saved all of us from having to read the back and forth high-school debate.

No. That is a simplistic and lazy view of what happened. Telling someone they are wrong generally makes them dig deeper in their position because our society has valued being “right” more than being “correct”. As bubble pointed out, what I did was give someone an opportunity to figure out if they new the mechanism for the belief they held, or if it was just repeating something they have been told.

Everyone is out here to prove a point that there gun knowledge dick is bigger than all others instead of helping.

Helping isn’t repeating beliefs that are immediately probable as false. I am here to gain knowledge when I can, and to get people to at least question the myths that permeate guns. These myths exist because very few actually shoot, those that do just repeat what they were taught without ever seeing if it’s true.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Agreed, my only point that started this whole mess is that skinny barrels heat up quicker, no matter if they are "stress relieved" or not, and that heat makes metal expand non-uniformly. Heat can be removed from the equation as you mentioned.

a 10 shot group with ALOT of cooling time between shots will tell you a whole lot more than 10 consecutive shots if your purpose is hunting

While I agree with you on a technical level about skinny barrels heating up quicker, I'm not convinced (from my observations trying it myself) there will be a discernable/meaningful difference in group size (at 10 rounds).

Speculating here, but I would guess that quite a few people have rifles that are not bedded/ free floated completely and have ammo with temperature sensitive powders that would arrive at the erroneous conclusion that their barrel is heat sensitive when shooting more that 3-5 round groups.

 

[aschuler]

*reads title of the thread expecting to see pics of 10 shot groups*
*scrolls through four pages of 3 shot groups and arguing* (okay a couple of you actually posted 10 shot groups)

I supposed I'll continue the trend with the intent that next time I have my Tikka out I'll shoot a 10 shot group and take a picture...maybe I'll even post it


If anyone is interested in understanding more on the topic of group size and 3 shot groups vs 10 shot groups I recommend Bryan Litz's book "Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting Vol 2"
In Chapter titled "Understanding Dispersion" he addresses this topic from a statistical standpoint.

One (of many) interesting discussions he has is predicting group size using a normal distribution (bell curve). Here's the chart he put in the book to illustrate the point. I haven't tested this myself so I don't know first hand how group sizes tend to follow the standard distribution. Maybe someone who has can chime in.

 

[Formidilosus]

I didn’t say there were benefits, just the fact that smaller groups and point of aim accuracy are more relative to hunting and the first shot counts, maybe a follow up shot, but not 10, hopefully

How so? The functional point of shooting groups is to find what size target the gun can consistently hit, and to be sure of a nearby perfect zero. In neither case do less rounds in a target equal “better”.

a 10 shot group with ALOT of cooling time between shots will tell you a whole lot more than 10 consecutive shots if your purpose is hunting

No, it does not. This is immediately and consistently proven through actually shooting. Shoot 20 rounds one shot at a time Then take and shot two 10 round groups back to back (let the barrel cool between groups for mirage). Then overlay the two groups of twenty rounds. They will be statistically the same. If they are not, then you have a rifle issue.

 

[Wags]

300 Yards.... 30.06 178 Grn ELDX

3

 

[Wags]

100 yards... 30-06 178grn ELDX, shot by my 11 year old son.

 

[Wags]

Top target 6.5 manbun 143grn ELDX - 2 shots then a dial.

Bottom target 30.06 178grn ELDX - 2 shots then dial.

 

[ETtikka]

How so? The functional point of shooting groups is to find what size target the gun can consistently hit, and to be sure of a nearby perfect zero. In neither case do less rounds in a target equal “better”.




No, it does not. This is immediately and consistently proven through actually shooting. Shoot 20 rounds one shot at a time Then take and shot two 10 round groups back to back (let the barrel cool between groups for mirage). Then overlay the two groups of twenty rounds. They will be statistically the same. If they are not, then you have a rifle issue.

I’m confused on how to hunt with a hot barrel

 

[Reburn]

I've gone through this exercise, posted aggregate groups as well as the breakdown (spoiler, these are not from Tikkas). The below groups were are all shot from the prone with a bipod and rear bag using factory ammo, and I am likely the weak link in those setups.

Here's seven (7) 3-shot groups from different days re-evaluating one of my suppressors recently (original post with target photos here). Between each group the suppressor was removed and reattached. Average 3-shot group is 0.390 -MOA and 21-shot aggregate is 0.787-MOA, which corresponds to a factor of 2.02. Litz provides a factor of 1.85 from 3 to 20 data points.

Of particular note, any of the 3-shot groups could have been reasonably used to establish zero, and my dope would have been good relative to the 20-shot aggregate group center.

View attachment 324977

View attachment 324999

-----------------------------------


Here's a 20-shot aggregate (original post with photos and breakdown here). Average 3-shot group would've been approximately 0.335-MOA, average 5-shot group would've been approximately 0.411-MOA, and 20-shot aggregate is approximately 0.650-MOA. For this data set, the factors are as follows:

From 3-shots to 5-shots: Factor = 1.227 (Litz provides 1.28)
From 3-shots to 20-shots: Factor = 1.803 (Litz provides 1.85)
From 5-shots to 20-shots: Factor = 1.582 (Litz provides 1.45)

Any of the 3-shot or 5-shot groups could've been used for zero and dope would've been good relative to the 20-shot aggregate. In fact, most of the single shots could have been used for zero.

View attachment 324981

View attachment 324982


-----------------------------------


Here's another 20-shot aggregate group form last year (original post with photos and breakdown here).
Average 3-shot group would've been approximately 0.495-MOA, average 5-shot group would've been approximately 0.647-MOA, and 20-shot aggregate is approximately 0.884-MOA. For this data set, the factors are as follows:

From 3-shots to 5-shots: Factor = 1.307 (Litz provides 1.28)
From 3-shots to 20-shots: Factor = 1.786 (Litz provides 1.85)
From 5-shots to 20-shots: Factor = 1.366 (Litz provides 1.45)

Except for maybe one of the 3-shot groups, any of the 3- and 5-shot groups could have been used for zero and my dope would've been good relative to the 20-shot aggregate.

View attachment 324983

View attachment 324984

Cool BUT........

While any of the 3 shot groups could have been used for a zero you still haven’t eliminated that the barrel is properly stress relieved and will function the same when hot on shots 5 or 9. Do you not think validating that your weapon works correctly and that the barrel is properly stressed relieved is a worthy experiment?

You have shown that a 3 shot group can function as a zero but really can’t be used to determine the precision of a system without applying a correction factor to the group size. Which many guys don’t understand how to do or that it exists.

The point here is a 10 shot 1 moa group is probably statistically a 30 shot 1.26 moa gun which is still pretty respectable system capable of banging a 12" vital at 1000 yard with over 90% accuracy. However, a hero group of 0.75 moa for 3 shot is statistically runout 0.75x1.99 = 1.49 moa gun.

IN CONCLUSION
The point to these exercises it to show that a 10 round group fire in consecutive without cooling has #1 established the weapon system precision to a high degree with a small correction factor of 1.26 which is damn near shooter error AND proven that your system is functioning correctly and you don’t have any problems with your barrel.

 

[ETtikka]

Cool BUT........

While any of the 3 shot groups could have been used for a zero you still haven’t eliminated that the barrel is properly stress relieved and will function the same when hot on shots 5 or 9. Do you not think validating that your weapon works correctly and that the barrel is properly stressed relieved is a worthy experiment?

You have shown that a 3 shot group can function as a zero but really can’t be used to determine the precision of a system without applying a correction factor to the group size. Which many guys don’t understand how to do or that it exists.

The point here is a 10 shot 1 moa group is probably statistically a 30 shot 1.26 moa gun which is still pretty respectable system capable of banging a 12" vital at 1000 yard with over 90% accuracy. However, a hero group of 0.75 moa for 3 shot is statistically runout 0.75x1.99 = 1.49 moa gun.

IN CONCLUSION
The point to these exercises it to show that a 10 round group fire in consecutive without cooling has #1 established the weapon system precision to a high degree with a small correction factor of 1.26 which is damn near shooter error AND proven that your system is functioning correctly and you don’t have any problems with your barrel.

i thought the title of this thread did not specify 10 shots??

 

[Formidilosus]

I've gone through this exercise, posted aggregate groups as well as the breakdown (spoiler, these are not from Tikkas). The below groups were are all shot from the prone with a bipod and rear bag using factory ammo, and I am likely the weak link in those setups.

This works because you used a system with well above average precision. Litz’s number work with guns that are close to a true 1 moa system consistently. Non competition setup hunting rifles with the vast majority of ammo being used are not true 1 moa systems.
The average tikka T3 Lite (or Sako) shooting the best factory ammo, or “good” handloads average between 1.2-1.6 moa for 20 round groups. That is as good or better average than I’ve seen from any other 6-7lb factory rifles. The last 8-10 Barret Fieldcrafts averaged between 1.4-2 moa for twenty rounds, the last 6 or so Bergara’s we’re between 1.4-2 moa, the last Christiansons we all over the map, some good around 1.2, and a couple that were 2.5+ moa. Same or worse for Remingtons, Winchesters, etc. Brownings tended better than most, and the few Sauer’s have been as good as Tikka/Sako.

What does that mean? That rifles that are on the right side of the bell curve- and non bench rest rifles that are producing .8 moa twenty round groups are on the very right side of the curve, need fewer shots to find the mean point of impact than even good normal rifles that are between 1.5-2 moa for twenty rounds. Yes

 

[Formidilosus]

In conclusion, there is absolutely zero magic or comparative significance to 10. At all.

Ten is t a magical number, the ire the better. There is a limit for the vast majority of people. Somewhere between 7 and 30 is a good answer. 10-15 start getting into the probability that the center of the group is within a single click of the scope. Neat that boxes of ammo come pre organized into sets of 10….

What’s easier to get a usable answer that will result in variables that will cause fewer issues for the average non dedicated shooter-

1). Doing what you did with shooting twenty single shots and overlaying them with a program and using a mathematical formula to arrive at an answer..

2). Or grabbing half the ammo in that nifty 20 round box and shorting them, looking at center, adjusting, then shooting the last ten.

Both arrive at the same answer, one requires jerking oneself off to a math problem, the other just shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

If I had my druthers… from a comparative standpoint we’d be shooting groups of 100.

 

[Reburn]

i thought the title of this thread did not specify 10 shots??

This thread didnt but we got there anyways like normal.

Completely depends on what you’re doing.

If you are never shooting consecutive 10-shot strings through your gun then there’s zero point in shooting a consecutive 10-shot string. If you regularly shot 5 or 10 consecutive shots, then you should probably practice that to see what’s going on. Tracking and evaluating how your gear is actually used is far more important than an arbitrary shot count.

Also it’s pretty dependent on the gear you’re using. If you’re using quality gear the probability of having a problem is less than using cheap gear. And all of this is evaluating probabilities.

In conclusion, there is absolutely zero magic or comparative significance to 10. At all.

I agree with some of the words you’re saying but don’t agree as a whole on with what your saying.

I have some guns that don’t have properly stress relieved barrels that walk when they get hot. 2 Weatherby’s and 1 X-bolt. I also have several with quality barrels that don’t walk regardless of the shot count.

Yes, using quality gear reduces the chance that the gear is the weak link but doesn’t eliminate it. Only testing that it performs as intended eliminates that it is or could be a problem.

Personally, I want to know my gun is good to go regardless of if I have shot 1 round or 10. I want to know that the weak link is behind the gun and not the gun. I wouldn’t by a vehicle that should do 80 to find out it will only do 35 and say well I don’t drive above 35 anyways.

10 - 30 shots have a relatively low correction factor, so you are wrong here. yes, it does have some magic to shoot a 10 shot group to see what your gun is doing.. 3 shots just has too high a correction factor to be certain where its falling on the curve.

 

[Reburn]

If I had my druthers… from a comparative standpoint we’d be shooting groups of 100.

Yep that's where we get off the train together.

To me that gets into the endless masturbating to shooting groups stage. That stage is where I'm out.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yep that's where we get off the train together.

To me that gets into the endless masturbating to shooting groups stage. That stage is where I'm out.

Oh I agree. There is very little functional benefit group samples that large, but there is a comparative use for it. It is far beyond what even very serious hunters need, but does reveal a lot about the nonsense that is repeated as nauseam- mainly that good barrels don’t walk, heat doesn’t really matter, and highly predictive information of group size and MPI starts somewhere around ten rounds and keeps jumping up until somewhere around thirty rounds then leveling off after.