Your Groups Are Too Small

[Formidilosus]

Jokes aside, do you have any drills or methods to practice wind calling, other than shooting at long range in the mountains? Maybe this is a subject for a different thread...

I would also like to know. I've heard of people carrying a kestrel around to measure wind and observe what's going on to get better at it but that only works for the person's location and not the middle of a canyon 5' above your line of sight.

I unfortunately can't shoot in the mountains as often as I'd like to.

No, there is no shortcut and no way around it- to be competent at making wind calls in the mountains, you must shoot and practice in the wind, in the mountains. Yes you can read about wind currents and how “wind is water”, but without that constant practice and refinement in the mountains in wind, it won’t do you a whole lot of good- just be a really solid on demand 0-450y or so hunter.
Of course practice and train as far as possible, but make your money at being an absolute killer at speed in any position out to 450’ish yards. Save the 600+ yard shots for follow ups on wounded animals.

With very solid gun handling, shooting skill, and high round count practice, nearly everyone can learn to call wind well enough to have a high success rate even if they can’t shoot in broken terrian often. Deluding oneself to believe that they will be a 700 or 800 yard mountain shooter when they don’t shoot thousands of rounds a year in the mountains, is not a high success endeavor.


As for calling wind, hey a wind meter, carry it and start learning to guess, feel, and see the wind speed. Use the kestrel to get the MPH then feel the wind, see how it is moving the terrain/grass/trees/leaves, and calibrate yourself to it. Watch THLR.no wind videos on YouTube. Get a FFP mil/mil scope and learn wind brackets. Then go to the range every time in the worst weather and apply what you’ve learned and the wind brackets and shoot- a lot.

 

[solarshooter]

Bet you $100 that if you shot a 30 round group of at 54.5, 55.0, 55.5gr- there is functional difference, and almost certainly they will be within statistical variability- you have “engineered” yourself into believing that you can control small variables to effect a real outcome.

I'm assuming you meant NO functional difference. True. I guess I would need to do that to prove that the selection method is valid or not. Like I said earlier, I have already proven this for a different powder combo, but it's not certain for this powder. I could pick the worst charge from the initial ladder and shoot 20-30 to see if it remains worse than 55.5. Disprove the null hypothesis as it were. I will try and do this in the next week or two and report back. But I will be asking for that 100$ if I'm right...

Reviving this zombie. I shot a pressure/MV sweep today on my 6CM looking for max charge of H4831SC. 2rds each from 41.0-45.5gr. 20 shot group measured 1.1moa. Powder charge doesn't affect group size!

 

[Formidilosus]

Reviving this zombie. I shot a pressure/MV sweep today on my 6CM looking for max charge of H4831SC. 2rds each from 41.0-45.5gr. 20 shot group measured 1.1moa. Powder charge doesn't affect group size!
View attachment 721453

Looks like it shoots.

 

[solarshooter]

Looks like it shoots.

I shot 32rds of 284 on Sunday and 37rds of 6CM today. Both on 9.25lb tikkas. The groups are good on both, but I 100% shoot the 6CM better, stay on target better, and fatigue less. I have a SiCo Schythe in process that's going on the 6CM and I can't wait to see how that combo shoots.

I've put this together over the last couple weeks, kind of interesting. Percentages are all relative to my 284. The 28nos powder effect has been artificially cut down to reflect perceived recoil with a brake. Masses of rifles and load data reflect real and hypothetical builds.

mp = mass of powder
vp = velocity of powder
mb = mass of bullet
vb = velocity of bullet
mr = mass of rifle
vr = velocity of rifle
pr = momentum of rifle
er = energy of rifle
Wind rating in mph
Wind/recoil is wind rating/er

By the last metric, you can really see how the 223 shines.

 

[Shortschaf]

I shot 32rds of 284 on Sunday and 37rds of 6CM today. Both on 9.25lb tikkas. The groups are good on both, but I 100% shoot the 6CM better, stay on target better, and fatigue less. I have a SiCo Schythe in process that's going on the 6CM and I can't wait to see how that combo shoots.

I've put this together over the last couple weeks, kind of interesting. Percentages are all relative to my 284. The 28nos powder effect has been artificially cut down to reflect perceived recoil with a brake. Masses of rifles and load data reflect real and hypothetical builds.
View attachment 721515
mp = mass of powder
vp = velocity of powder
mb = mass of bullet
vb = velocity of bullet
mr = mass of rifle
vr = velocity of rifle
pr = momentum of rifle
er = energy of rifle
Wind rating in mph
Wind/recoil is wind rating/er

By the last metric, you can really see how the 223 shines.

I mean this in a constructive way-- the metric at the bottom is so diluted with assumptions that it's meaningless by itself

 

[solarshooter]

I mean this in a constructive way-- the metric at the bottom is so diluted with assumptions that it's meaningless by itself

Can you elaborate? You mean load and rifle mass assumptions? It's meaningful for the real rifles and loads that are input there. And it's somewhat meaningful for hypothetical loads and builds, which are based on research and small tweaks from existing rifles.

 

[Shortschaf]

Can you elaborate? You mean load and rifle mass assumptions? It's meaningful for the real rifles and loads that are input there. And it's somewhat meaningful for hypothetical loads and builds, which are based on research and small tweaks from existing rifles.

I don't mean your mathematical assumptions. Those look fine.
The "metric" has two inputs: wind mph and calculated recoil amplitude.

People's ability to call wind varies greatly
People's ability to handle recoil varies greatly. Especially when adding muzzle devices

Therefore, I claim the "metric" is not meaningful. That is all.

 

[solarshooter]

I don't mean your mathematical assumptions. Those look fine.
The "metric" has two inputs: wind mph and calculated recoil amplitude.

People's ability to call wind varies greatly
People's ability to handle recoil varies greatly. Especially when adding muzzle devices

Therefore, I claim the "metric" is not meaningful. That is all.

Ah I see. Well those factors are important, but I think it's still valuable for comparing or selecting a cartridge. It does a good job of illustrating why 308 might be a poor choice over say 6CM.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't mean your mathematical assumptions. Those look fine.
The "metric" has two inputs: wind mph and calculated recoil amplitude.

People's ability to call wind varies greatly
People's ability to handle recoil varies greatly. Especially when adding muzzle devices

Therefore, I claim the "metric" is not meaningful. That is all.

The last column is amount of wind drift versus amount of recoil. It means- the 223 that he’s using has less wind drift per foot-lb of recoil than anything else on the list. Or… the most, for the least.

How is that not meaningful?

 

[Shortschaf]

How is that not meaningful?

For the reasons I stated earlier. It's not meaningful by itself.
Below is the .22lr "metric" using the same assumptions.

A user wanted to use math to do a meaningful comparison. I love that. But just because the math is correct doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. And maybe he didn't mean for it to be taken that way

 

[solarshooter]

For the reasons I stated earlier. It's not meaningful by itself.
Below is the .22lr "metric" using the same assumptions.

A user wanted to use math to do a meaningful comparison. I love that. But just because the math is correct doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. And maybe he didn't mean for it to be taken that way

View attachment 721580

Yeah, the metric could be abused by extreme edge cases as you demonstrated. But for a similar set of cartridges limited by certain ballistic parameters or recoil, I think it is pretty useful to quantify the recoil vs wind performance.

 

[Formidilosus]

For the reasons I stated earlier. It's not meaningful by itself.
Below is the .22lr "metric" using the same assumptions.

A user wanted to use math to do a meaningful comparison. I love that. But just because the math is correct doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. And maybe he didn't mean for it to be taken that way

View attachment 721580

I understand, thank you. However, invest case he is comparing carriages that all create more than sufficient tissue destruction to kill quickly. The 22LR does not- if it did, I would use it.

 

[ztc92]

Did some shooting today and thought these three groups really drive home the idea that even 10 shot groups may not tell the whole story of your rifle and its cone. These are each 10 shot groups from the same rifle, same position with no adjustments in between. To make the first group seem even even better in my mind, I did call the flyer that went high in the first group as the stock fell back off the rest as that shot broke. The next two groups felt like equally good shooting but the group size sure doesn’t reflect that feeling. Superimpose all 3 groups though and you get a 30 shot group with a fairly even distribution that suggests this rifle with this ammo is around 2 MOA.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Did some shooting today and thought these three groups really drive home the idea that even 10 shot groups may not tell the whole story of your rifle and its cone. These are each 10 shot groups from the same rifle, same position with no adjustments in between. To make the first group seem even even better in my mind, I did call the flyer that went high in the first group as the stock fell back off the rest as that shot broke. The next two groups felt like equally good shooting but the group size sure doesn’t reflect that feeling. Superimpose all 3 groups though and you get a 30 shot group with a fairly even distribution that suggests this rifle with this ammo is around 2 MOA.

Is that rifle bedded?

 

[ztc92]

Is that rifle bedded?

No it is not. Just a factory Tikka with minor modifications to the cheek riser and recoil pad. I will check the action screws after the range session but I did not notice anything off while shooting or when putting it away.

Edit to add, rifle did not move between groups, was just reloaded and left sitting on pack in between groups.

 

[Harvey_NW]

No it is not. Just a factory Tikka with minor modifications to the cheek riser and recoil pad. I will check the action screws after the range session but I did not notice anything off while shooting or when putting it away.

Edit to add, rifle did not move between groups, was just reloaded and left sitting on pack in between groups.

Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth - to me it looks like it wants to shoot, especially with the first group hammering out a cluster and then going sporadic like something either came loose, or you were getting contact from the stock flexing or something. I would definitely check all torque specs on bases, rings, and action screws. Degrease and loctite or paint pen are essential. I do 55in/lb on action screws because I'm a sissy and don't want to pull an insert through a bottom plastic.

Also might be worth doing some clearance work in the barrel channel and around the chamber area (carbide on a dremel tool and some emery cloth or sandpaper wrapped around a socket works great), and taking out the pressure points so the barrel is fully free floated. A skim bed never hurts if done right, but my unbedded factory stocks have always shot fine torqued down with the action slot seated against the recoil lug by dropping it on the butt with the action screws snug, then torqueing.

 

[Reburn]

Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth - to me it looks like it wants to shoot, especially with the first group hammering out a cluster and then going sporadic like something either came loose, or you were getting contact from the stock flexing or something. I would definitely check all torque specs on bases, rings, and action screws. Degrease and loctite or paint pen are essential. I do 55in/lb on action screws because I'm a sissy and don't want to pull an insert through a bottom plastic.

Also might be worth doing some clearance work in the barrel channel and around the chamber area (carbide on a dremel tool and some emery cloth or sandpaper wrapped around a socket works great), and taking out the pressure points so the barrel is fully free floated. A skim bed never hurts if done right, but my unbedded factory stocks have always shot fine torqued down with the action slot seated against the recoil lug by dropping it on the butt with the action screws snug, then torqueing.

View attachment 750466View attachment 750467View attachment 750468

I agree with this. Things shoot loose. And maybe its contact. Looks like there is maybe something happening there. Thats one thing I do like about my chassis and have multiple stocks for testing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Haha. There’s nothing loose on his rifle, or at least there wasn’t for the 1,000+/- rounds I watched him shoot it for in June. I believe he shot that off a backpack. In any case, it’s a 30 round group of sub 2 MOA…. There isn’t a whole lot of rifles and people doing that on demand.

 

[ztc92]

Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth - to me it looks like it wants to shoot, especially with the first group hammering out a cluster and then going sporadic like something either came loose, or you were getting contact from the stock flexing or something. I would definitely check all torque specs on bases, rings, and action screws. Degrease and loctite or paint pen are essential. I do 55in/lb on action screws because I'm a sissy and don't want to pull an insert through a bottom plastic.

Also might be worth doing some clearance work in the barrel channel and around the chamber area (carbide on a dremel tool and some emery cloth or sandpaper wrapped around a socket works great), and taking out the pressure points so the barrel is fully free floated. A skim bed never hurts if done right, but my unbedded factory stocks have always shot fine torqued down with the action slot seated against the recoil lug by dropping it on the butt with the action screws snug, then torqueing.

View attachment 750466View attachment 750467View attachment 750468

Really appreciate your thoughts on this and I think you make some really good points. I can tell you everything is degreased and held with loctite. I sanded my barrel channel using a 1” socket so it’s almost to dead cat size now.

The action screws are a good reminder though, I usually torque them as recommended but don’t actually recall if I did that after messing with the stock last week since I thought I may want to remove the stock and adjust things further at the range if I didn’t like the fit. I’ll take a look at the rifle tomorrow and report back on what I find.

 

[mlevimadden]

Keith Glasscock posted a seating depth test recently on his youtube channel that aligns with a lot of what is posted here as well. Warning, it's very statistics-heavy like most of his videos, but my engineering brain appreciates the math and science-based approach. My key takeaways were.

1. Seating depth did not make a noticeable difference in group size once larger sample sizes were taken.
2. With an F-open setup way more precise than a hunting rifle shot by a world-class shooter, his average 3 round group size was just under 0.2 MOA but his 30 round group size increased to around 0.75 MOA.