What's your most accurate hunting rifle?

[roadrunner]

There is definitely statistical relevance in different group sizes. 10 drives the variability down far enough that you actually get a representation of consistency, and you can apply statistics to. A cold bore challenge is less about a proven system, and more about the fundamentals being applied to a hunting type situation with a cold shooter. If you think it's a nonsensical waste of time, you either haven't honestly tried it, or you're an extremely fundamentally sound and slightly egotistical shooter.

I replied to this because I think it's beneficial to the thread. When referring to your most accurate rifle, if all you've ever shot is 3 shot groups try 10 sometime and see if it holds together.

That's the point I'm trying to make, and obviously poor at that. A 10 shot group isn't necessary if a 3 shot group provides the results needed for a hunting application.

Whether or not the remaining 7 shots hold together doesn't matter in a hunting situation. For them to hold together is a matter of peace of mind for the shooter.

If someone can pick up a rifle, cold (both the barrel and shooter) and hit a 1 MOA sized target at whatever distance, that's all anyone should ever need out of a hunting rifle. Downrange variables aren't a factor because you correct for that (or at least you should). A cross breeze isn't going to suddenly change how the rifle itself behaves and it certainly won't affect the mechanics of your load from chamber to muzzle.

The only time a hunting barrel is warm is after several misses or the hunter is road hunting and bails out to shoot at the target from across the hood. A multi shot group won't fix that. Something else needs to change.

Why it's difficult for some to understand why they should want their hunting rifle to be able to be 1 MOA accurate on the first shot is mind boggling to me. It tells me they are okay with a poor hit first to be followed up by a kill shot second.

But I'm wrong as usual, just like everyone else in making assumptions...

 

[Macintosh]

@roadrunner we are talking past each other. Warm vs hot is irrelevant, if you want to shoot 1 shot per day to keep barrel cold that’s fine…the point is that if you did that 10 or 20 days in a row at the exact same target even under perfect conditions you would not have all shots go into the same hole— as you shoot more shots the “aggregate group” where all your single shots go will increase in size based on the bell curve I posted earlier. People are shooting large groups to have a statistically relevant picture of what that bell curve looks like for their rifle, because no 1 or 3 shots can represent that consistently. That is all done for the single purpose of being able to say what the maximum dispersion (the cone) of that gun is, to predict with a much higher level of confidence where any ONE shot will land.

 

[wind gypsy]

Why it's difficult for some to understand why they should want their hunting rifle to be able to be 1 MOA accurate on the first shot is mind boggling to me. It tells me they are okay with a poor hit first to be followed up by a kill shot second.

Nobody is saying this.

Some people may say that a good gun shouldn't have a cold bore shift which is the opposite of saying "shoot more so you can see where it groups when hot".

If you're set on shooting numerous cold bore shots where environmentals can be ruled out of the equation i don't think anyone is going to argue with you about it being a sufficient way to zero or evaluate you/your rifle's capabilities. Just that it's tedious and if you're looking to prove your rifle as capable, its a lot easier to just have a rifle that performs like it's supposed to where you dont need to wait for it to cool down.

 

[Harvey_NW]

That's the point I'm trying to make, and obviously poor at that. A 10 shot group isn't necessary if a 3 shot group provides the results needed for a hunting application.

I don't think you understand statistical variability, or distribution. The first 3 shots could go into .3" and the group could blow up to 2" or more if you keep shooting, but you don't know unless you shoot the shots.

Whether or not the remaining 7 shots hold together doesn't matter in a hunting situation. For them to hold together is a matter of peace of mind for the shooter.

They absolutely do, because they may be the next 7 cold bores on the next 7 hunts. You can know where they would have gone by shooting them at the target, the more you shoot at the target the better idea you have of where the next 7 are gonna go. See the trend here?

If someone can pick up a rifle, cold (both the barrel and shooter) and hit a 1 MOA sized target at whatever distance, that's all anyone should ever need out of a hunting rifle. Downrange variables aren't a factor because you correct for that (or at least you should). A cross breeze isn't going to suddenly change how the rifle itself behaves and it certainly won't affect the mechanics of your load from chamber to muzzle.

You don't know the probability of hitting targets without a measurement of precision. The Applied Ballistics WEZ calculator requires precision, which is the true ES of the cone of fire. A 1 MOA on demand shooter at whatever distance would be a pretty bold claim.

The only time a hunting barrel is warm is after several misses or the hunter is road hunting and bails out to shoot at the target from across the hood. A multi shot group won't fix that. Something else needs to change.

Okay? So get a new barrel and make temperature irrelevant. But distinguishing the warm/cold deviation also takes a large sample size to validate, and it's pretty clear you're not a fan so I wouldn't put any stock in that.

Why it's difficult for some to understand why they should want their hunting rifle to be able to be 1 MOA accurate on the first shot is mind boggling to me. It tells me they are okay with a poor hit first to be followed up by a kill shot second.

Everyone should absolutely want that, the point is there's very little statistical validity to 3 shot groups, unless you shoot multiple and correlate group size and POI, and compile the data. A larger sample is just higher probability and more confidence, as you said. But more often than not, the group exceeds 1 MOA, or grows drastically larger than the shooter wants to accept because the interwebs only accepts 1/4 MOA all day, if you do your part.

Thanks to members here once I accepted the truth that my rifle doesn't shoot as precise as I think it does and I suck at shooting, I was able to work on the fundamentals and get better.

But I'm wrong as usual, just like everyone else in making assumptions...

The statistics produced by ballisticians don't lie. Try it for yourself sometime at the range and results usually align. Or, save your own ammo and browse hundreds of other posts in threads on this site that show exactly the same results.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't think you understand statistical variability, or distribution. The first 3 shots could go into .3" and the group could blow up to 2" or more if you keep shooting, but you don't know unless you shoot the shots.

Your over analyzing, and you've made an incorrect assumption, but carry on I guess. And, if the first shot is .3", well..

They absolutely do, because they may be the next 7 cold bores on the next 7 hunts. You can know where they would have gone by shooting them at the target, the more you shoot at the target the better idea you have of where the next 7 are gonna go. See the trend here?

For that shooting session, sure. Next shooting session maybe, maybe not. If they do, and your first shot is 2 MOA, then why? Is it because you need to warmup a little and settle in behind the rifle better or is it because the rifle is erratic cold? That can be the difference between a leg shot below the brisket or a low double lung. I hope my rifle is capable of better predictability when it matters.

I certainly don't need to do this everytime before I go hunting...

You don't know the probability of hitting targets without a measurement of precision. The Applied Ballistics WEZ calculator requires precision, which is the true ES of the cone of fire. A 1 MOA on demand shooter at whatever distance would be a pretty bold claim.

If I can take my rifle out at any time and hit what I'm aiming at...well...the probability of hitting it the next time is likely. You don't train a rifle to do anything. Small groups at different intervals enough times is a data set as well...

Okay? So get a new barrel and make temperature irrelevant. But distinguishing the warm/cold deviation also takes a large sample size to validate, and it's pretty clear you're not a fan so I wouldn't put any stock in that.

huh?

Everyone should absolutely want that, the point is there's very little statistical validity to 3 shot groups, unless you shoot multiple and correlate group size and POI, and compile the data. A larger sample is just higher probability and more confidence, as you said. But more often than not, the group exceeds 1 MOA, or grows drastically larger than the shooter wants to accept because the interwebs only accepts 1/4 MOA all day, if you do your part.

Your larger sample size will either confirm consistency or that you have zero faith in it being able to get the job done with one shot. If that's what you want to do every year before you hunt, then yay for you?

If your group exceeds an MOA or grows drastically with a higher data set...

The statistics produced by ballisticians don't lie. Try it for yourself sometime at the range and results usually align.

Never said it did. In fact, I don't recall ever having said I can perfectly hit within an MOA ever time I shoot one round. Maybe I did. If so, please point it out to me.

What I do remember saying is that my rifles all shoot adequately enough to hit a 3" circle at 400 yds the first time, so yeah. I can see how that could be interpreted as me being the best marksmen ever.

Your own statistical distribution will prove that it will happen at least once in a 20 shot group. It would be correct to say the repeatability of any one shot out of a 20 shot group will hit within 1 MOA the first time if that 20 shot group proved to be a 2 MOA group.

Perhaps what I should have said and will say is that my rifles all shoot well enough to where the capability is there to hit within 1 MOA, which, is accurate enough for me, but laying in the snow prone on an angled piece of sandstone with melting snow dripping down my neck would likely make me "miss" by 4 MOA like anyone else. To quote Benjamin Martin "what did I tell you fellas about shooting...aim small, miss small"

@Macintosh
@wind gypsy

Thank you gentlemen for your concern. I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing because it works and hasn't necessarily been wrong. It's certainly unorthodox to popular (and probably correct) thinking and that's okay. I've taken many animals before I even knew what Rokslide was, and will take even more after Rokslide is just a distant memory for me.

Cheers.

 

[TheHammer]

I own a handful of savage 110s. They are all more accurate than I am. And by far the most consistent rifle manufacturer For accuracy I’ve owned and seen.

 

[omicron1792]

My Blaser r8 just shoots straight in whatever barrel or cartridge I put in it.

 

[JerkyFreak]

The question was about the most accurate hunting rifle you have. Not how well you can shoot. The only way to know that is to shoot at the same point of aim repeatedly from a stable position. You can do 10 shots in 10 seconds or 10 shots in 20 days. The operative condition is same point of aim same distance. It is a measure of confidence that you can apply to the rifle.

We all know that 3 shots is a poor indication of precision; 5 is better and 10 is statistically valid. A 10 shot group is a very good indication of where the next 100 shots will land. The size of said group will then also dictate my maximum range that I can ethically take a shot at a living animal.

On a side note, if the cold bore shot falls within the subsequent group, then there is no need to keep testing cold bore shots. Some tend to conflate a clean bore with a cold bore. I have a POI shift with a clean bore, never with a cold bore.