The 22 creedmoor thread

[amassi]

They're not terrible, 1.5 moa at worst so far, but if I can get 1 moa or better, I'd feel a lot better.

H4350?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I understand. Once you have a few rifles that shoot real well it’s hard to have confidence in a 1.5 moa gun. Even though it’s probably adequate for big game.

Take it far enough and you hit a point where you realize that you can kill at will with an on demand 1.5moa system, and the only real thing that matters is absolute stability.

 

[Lawnboi]

Take it far enough and you hit a point where you realize that you can kill at will with an on demand 1.5moa system, and the only real thing that matters is absolute stability.

I’m not at that point yet. That and maybe my opinion is skewed by shooting matches that are now 1.6moa average target size.

I really only have one gun that is 1.5moa anymore, mu 223z. It’s absolutely adequate for big game put to the range I require. But it drives me nuts to shoot my 3006 better than it. It just shouldn’t happen. That and I lust for better precision for prairie dogs.

The extra wind budget is also a reason I always would like a little smaller. Hard to argue, a couple inches saved in you and your rifles precision won’t help you in a dynamic wind situation.

Of course none of that matters if I’m a 1.5moa shooter that day.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m not at that point yet. That and maybe my opinion is skewed by shooting matches that are now 1.6moa average target size.

I really only have one gun that is 1.5moa anymore, mu 223z. It’s absolutely adequate for big game put to the range I require. But it drives me nuts to shoot my 3006 better than it. It just shouldn’t happen. That and I lust for better precision for prairie dogs.

The extra wind budget is also a reason I always would like a little smaller. Hard to argue, a couple inches saved in you and your rifles precision won’t help you in a dynamic wind situation.

Of course none of that matters if I’m a 1.5moa shooter that day.

I get it, almost everyone gets to where they want the best precision possible. In our brains it should make a difference while hunting, but in actuality it doesn’t. And that is the most annoying part. For me it was when I realized that we were absolutely crushing 12” targets every single day between 300-600m with legitimate 3 MOA+ gun systems. For matches and prairie dogs, yes 1.5 MOA is a handicap for some. For big game, not in the least.

We miss due to the largest source of error, and deviation from center due to group size is almost never the reason in field shooting. The Rifle Kraft drill shows that very few people even in perfect conditions with no stress need to worry about whether their gun is shooting .5 MOA or 2moa, and if you do the same drill at distance in any wind, you realize that you need to be placing in the top 5-10 places in large matches for it to really make a difference.

The difference in a 12” plate at 600 yards in any wind at all is less than 5% between 1 MOA and 1.5 MOA- and that’s for 30 round ES. You have to shoot a lot see 5%. However, the difference between a zeroed rifle and one that is off zero by less than 1 MOA is massive- like 50%.

 

[Jake Leibke]

I get it, almost everyone gets to where they want the best precision possible. In our brains it should make a difference while hunting, but in actuality it doesn’t. And that is the most annoying part. For me it was when I realized that we were absolutely crushing 12” targets every single day between 300-600m with legitimate 3 MOA+ gun systems. For matches and prairie dogs, yes 1.5 MOA is a handicap for some. For big game, not in the least.

We miss due to the largest source of error, and deviation from center due to group size is almost never the reason in field shooting. The Rifle Kraft drill shows that very few people even in perfect conditions with no stress need to worry about whether their gun is shooting .5 MOA or 2moa, and if you do the same drill at distance in any wind, you realize that you need to be placing in the top 5-10 places in large matches for it to really make a difference.

The difference in a 12” plate at 600 yards in any wind at all is less than 5% between 1 MOA and 1.5 MOA- and that’s for 30 round ES. You have to shoot a lot see 5%. However, the difference between a zeroed rifle and one that is off zero by less than 1 MOA is massive- like 50%.

So which zero would you go with out of these 2 groups? Hate to plug up this thread but it is with my 22 cm.
50 yard zero. SWFA 10X MIL
First pic is what I chose for zero. Second pic is with 1 click of adjustment to try to correct.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

So which zero would you go with out of these 2 groups? Hate to plug up this thread but it is with my 22 cm.
50 yard zero. SWFA 10X MIL
First pic is what I chose for zero. Second pic is with 1 click of adjustment to try to correct.

Neither. 50 yards isn’t far enough to get a solid zero, and 5 rounds isn’t enough from that combination to see the true center- neither groups is round and 1 mil would have moved it .18” at 50 yards. You didn’t need the .1 right adjustment.

 

[id_jon]

H4350?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4831sc

I was very careful to say that I would feel better with 1moa or better
I really think that the smaller diameter bullet holes makes a larger group look that much worse to your eye as well.

 

[amassi]

4831sc

I was very careful to say that I would feel better with 1moa or better
I really think that the smaller diameter bullet holes makes a larger group look that much worse to your eye as well.

Never been my favorite, works in a pinch but H4350 and the discontinued imr 4451, is really the sweet spot in the 22cm And 75-90 grain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ID_Matt]

I get it, almost everyone gets to where they want the best precision possible. In our brains it should make a difference while hunting, but in actuality it doesn’t. And that is the most annoying part. For me it was when I realized that we were absolutely crushing 12” targets every single day between 300-600m with legitimate 3 MOA+ gun systems. For matches and prairie dogs, yes 1.5 MOA is a handicap for some. For big game, not in the least.

We miss due to the largest source of error, and deviation from center due to group size is almost never the reason in field shooting. The Rifle Kraft drill shows that very few people even in perfect conditions with no stress need to worry about whether their gun is shooting .5 MOA or 2moa, and if you do the same drill at distance in any wind, you realize that you need to be placing in the top 5-10 places in large matches for it to really make a difference.

The difference in a 12” plate at 600 yards in any wind at all is less than 5% between 1 MOA and 1.5 MOA- and that’s for 30 round ES. You have to shoot a lot see 5%. However, the difference between a zeroed rifle and one that is off zero by less than 1 MOA is massive- like 50%.

I believe it, but it is hard to wrap ones head around a 3 MOA gun crushing a 2 MOA target. In my head I think one is going to have to miss at least 1/3 of the time due to accuracy deviation.

 

[Lawnboi]

Never been my favorite, works in a pinch but H4350 and the discontinued imr 4451, is really the sweet spot in the 22cm And 75-90 grain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting. I thought h4350 was too fast, in my barrel Atleast. The load was 50fps faster but must have been near top end because any significant heat or moisture would cause heavy bolt lift. Heck I think h4350 is almost too fast for 6 creedmoor even.

 

[Formidilosus]

I believe it, but it is hard to wrap ones head around a 3 MOA gun crushing a 2 MOA target. In my head I think one is going to have to miss at least 1/3 of the time due to accuracy deviation.

Yes and no. “Crushing” is relative and I’m not advocating for 3 MOA rifles, just pointing out that baseline precision is only a part of what goes into hitting a target, and mostly it is not the largest part.

There are a couple of points to that. First, is just in the cone- the spread of shots follows a normal distribution. That means that more shots land closer to center than shots that land near the edges.
Second, is the group size of the shooter. People believe that they can lay down and shoot 1 MOA in the field because they have a 1 MOA gun- that’s not reality. Almost everyone equates their bench groups (and of course it’s their best 3 shot groups) to their field groups- they are not the same, or even close. Very, very few people can go from standing with all their gear on them, to building a position and hit a 1 MOA target ten or twenty times in a row. That’s the basis of the Kraft Drill and one can see the history of how that went (the vast majority of competition PRS shooters were 3 to 4 MOA shooters at best). If you take a 3 MOA shooter- which if someone isn’t specifically training for this is being extremely generous, then a 1 MOA rifle and a 3 MOA shooter creates a 4 MOA “system”. A 3 MOA shooter and a 3 MOA rifle creates a 6 MOA system. So the difference between extremely high precision and unlikely (the group size here is based on 30 shot ES) and below average precision of 3 MOA is still 2 moa, however both systems have a low enough hit rate that is often hard to notice the difference between them- the one that hits more often is the one that gets other aspects correct- wind, elevation, who builds a better position, etc. Add wind into the equation and the differences are all but indistinguishable.


Again, the the first round hit rates are already low due to everything that affects each shot- the baseline precision is just a single part of that. In seeing a large amount of hunters and shooters that “shoot long range”, first round hit rates on 2-3 MOA targets at 600 yards in mountainous, broken terrain, with the first time they have ever seen that target and that canyon or shooting location ranges from 0-20’ish percent, with the absolute top end shooters being around 80-90%- regardless of inherent rifle precision. This is simply because people are not training/practicing on the things that cause the largest source of errors. The group I was speaking to about “crushing” using 3 MOA systems are between 50% and 55% for those same targets- they are basically shooting to the guns capability. Yes, those same shooters when given good precision guns (1-1.5moa) hit more often, but not as much as you would think- about 60’ish percent first round hits in unknown conditions (wind).


We miss due to the largest source of error. In field shooting novel conditions, it is, in order-

1). Because we suck

2). Did not have a zero at all

3). Scope lost zero

3). Rifle lost zero

4). Did not have an optimum zero

5). Wind call error


That is based on seeing multiple hundreds of shooters on both ranges and hunting. I and the people I hunt and shoot with keep notes on each shot in the field and what/why it happened. That’s the top 5 things that has come out with tens of thousands of rounds and hundreds of animals. Being an on demand shooter and having a rifle system that stays zeroed no matter what are by far the two most dominating factors.

 

[amassi]

Interesting. I thought h4350 was too fast, in my barrel Atleast. The load was 50fps faster but must have been near top end because any significant heat or moisture would cause heavy bolt lift. Heck I think h4350 is almost too fast for 6 creedmoor even.

It’s been the easy button with Peterson brass, fed 210m and 88/75 eld m. Same loads in close to 20 barrels now, was also my go to with the 22-250ai before I caught wind of the 22cm

 

[Lawnboi]

It’s been the easy button with Peterson brass, fed 210m and 88/75 eld m. Same loads in close to 20 barrels now, was also my go to with the 22-250ai before I caught wind of the 22cm

What freebore and how much powder? Just curious. I was shooting 39 grains before dumping h4350 for h4831sc.

 

[amassi]

What freebore and how much powder? Just curious. I was shooting 39 grains before dumping h4350 for h4831sc.

39 with the 75 and 37 with the 88.
Freebore is .080


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amassi]

I have a .160 fb for 90 a tips and 95 smk as well it likes the slower 4831 burn rate, I’m currently shooting through imr 4955 (a tips) and 7977/h1000 (smk)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Firth]

Yes and no. “Crushing” is relative and I’m not advocating for 3 MOA rifles, just pointing out that baseline precision is only a part of what goes into hitting a target, and mostly it is not the largest part.

There are a couple of points to that. First, is just in the cone- the spread of shots follows a normal distribution. That means that more shots land closer to center than shots that land near the edges.
Second, is the group size of the shooter. People believe that they can lay down and shoot 1 MOA in the field because they have a 1 MOA gun- that’s not reality. Almost everyone equates their bench groups (and of course it’s their best 3 shot groups) to their field groups- they are not the same, or even close. Very, very few people can go from standing with all their gear on them, to building a position and hit a 1 MOA target ten or twenty times in a row. That’s the basis of the Kraft Drill and one can see the history of how that went (the vast majority of competition PRS shooters were 3 to 4 MOA shooters at best). If you take a 3 MOA shooter- which if someone isn’t specifically training for this is being extremely generous, then a 1 MOA rifle and a 3 MOA shooter creates a 4 MOA “system”. A 3 MOA shooter and a 3 MOA rifle creates a 6 MOA system. So the difference between extremely high precision and unlikely (the group size here is based on 30 shot ES) and below average precision of 3 MOA is still 2 moa, however both systems have a low enough hit rate that is often hard to notice the difference between them- the one that hits more often is the one that gets other aspects correct- wind, elevation, who builds a better position, etc. Add wind into the equation and the differences are all but indistinguishable.


Again, the the first round hit rates are already low due to everything that affects each shot- the baseline precision is just a single part of that. In seeing a large amount of hunters and shooters that “shoot long range”, first round hit rates on 2-3 MOA targets at 600 yards in mountainous, broken terrain, with the first time they have ever seen that target and that canyon or shooting location ranges from 0-20’ish percent, with the absolute top end shooters being around 80-90%- regardless of inherent rifle precision. This is simply because people are not training/practicing on the things that cause the largest source of errors. The group I was speaking to about “crushing” using 3 MOA systems are between 50% and 55% for those same targets- they are basically shooting to the guns capability. Yes, those same shooters when given good precision guns (1-1.5moa) hit more often, but not as much as you would think- about 60’ish percent first round hits in unknown conditions (wind).

We miss due to the largest source of error. In field shooting novel conditions, it is, in order-

1). Because we suck

2). Did not have a zero at all

3). Scope lost zero

3). Rifle lost zero

4). Did not have an optimum zero

5). Wind call error


That is based on seeing multiple hundreds of shooters on both ranges and hunting. I and the people I hunt and shoot with keep notes on each shot in the field and what/why it happened. That’s the top 5 things that has come out with tens of thousands of rounds and hundreds of animals. Being an on demand shooter and having a rifle system that stays zeroed no matter what are by far the two most dominating factors.

First of all, I'm not really a statistics guy, I'm an engineer that knows just enough statistics to get into trouble. Hopefully there is someone who can come along and point out any fallacies in what I say.

Normally distributed errors don't stack linearly. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but if you have a shooter that is capable of 3 MOA with 90% confidence, and you had them use a 1 MOA rifle (again 90% confidence) I believe it would be more accurate to say you have a 3.2 MOA system (square root(3^2+1^2)) not a 4 MOA system.

That actually agrees very well with your statement that the largest errors are what governs, and I agree with everything else, just not the linear adding of error.

 

[Formidilosus]

First of all, I'm not really a statistics guy, I'm an engineer that knows just enough statistics to get into trouble. Hopefully there is someone who can come along and point out any fallacies in what I say.

Normally distributed errors don't stack linearly. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but if you have a shooter that is capable of 3 MOA with 90% confidence, and you had them use a 1 MOA rifle (again 90% confidence) I believe it would be more accurate to say you have a 3.2 MOA system (square root(3^2+1^2)) not a 4 MOA system.

That actually agrees very well with your statement that the largest errors are what governs, and I agree with everything else, just not the linear adding of error.

You are correct, though I am not sure of the math. I do not have a way to input that into the WEZ, so do it the simple way.

 

[Carl Ross]

having a rifle system that stays zeroed no matter what

For some reason I feel like people don't believe me when I harp on a perfect zero, and tell them being .1 mil off is equivalent to making their system .7 moa worse shooting. If it was a 1.5 MOA system, it might as well be a 2.2 MOA system now, at least for the initial shot which is what matters when you're playing for keeps. And that's ONE click. It's a lot easier to get a perfect zero than improve your platforms precision that much any other way. Keeping that zero takes some attention though...

I'm 100% guilty of wanting my hunting rifles to connect with moa or smaller steel more often than not, even if it won't make me a more successful hunter statistically. I like to play.

Normally distributed errors don't stack linearly. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but if you have a shooter that is capable of 3 MOA with 90% confidence, and you had them use a 1 MOA rifle (again 90% confidence) I believe it would be more accurate to say you have a 3.2 MOA system (square root(3^2+1^2)) not a 4 MOA system.

I'm not a statistics expert either but this is my understanding as well, add the squares of the error values all together and take the square root of that.

 

[Formidilosus]

For some reason I feel like people don't believe me when I harp on a perfect zero, and tell them being .1 mil off is equivalent to making their system .7 moa worse shooting. If it was a 1.5 MOA system, it might as well be a 2.2 MOA system now, at least for the initial shot which is what matters when you're playing for keeps. And that's ONE click.

It actually results in a first round hit rate of worse than a 2.2 MOA system with your example. Imagine taking this and moving the shot group .1 or .2 mils away from center-

Being off zero is bad.


Take that 73%, move the cone a few inches in any direction and your hit rate drops by nearly half of that- 35’ish % at best.

Add some wind, and being off zero at all plummets your hit rate-

I'm 100% guilty of wanting my hunting rifles to connect with moa or smaller steel more often than not, even if it won't make me a more successful hunter statistically. I like to play.

No doubt. And you are probably one of the few that spending the time and energy to go from an on demand 1.5 MOA, to an on demand 1 to 1.2 MOA is worth it. Someone has to practice (more like training) a lot, and be quite skilled to make it worth it, versus working on other aspects.

 

[Team4LongGun]

1). Because we suck



5). Wind call error

Amen. Truth, and funny to boot.