Your Groups Are Too Small

[Gargoyle]

For posterity......or for anyone that cares.

5/5/2020: "off the shelf" copper creek loaded 140 Berger Elite Hunter out of a 22" Bartlein
View attachment 497046

View attachment 497047

View attachment 497108

Median 3-shot group is 0.399 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.557 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 1.023 MOA (with called flier); 0.78 MOA (excluding called flier)

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

As an aside, if people are interested in having quality data, they need to be able to call shooter errors. You can't discard a shot just because you don't like it, you can't keep a knowingly bad shot either (regardless of where it landed). In the above example, the statistical factors actually back-up the called flier.

----------------------------------------------
7/24/2020: Factory Prime 130 OTM out of a 26" Benchmark
View attachment 497057

View attachment 497059

View attachment 497062

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.410 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 0.650 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

----------------------------------------------
8/25/2022: Factory Hornady 108 ELDM out of 26" SS Proof barrel
View attachment 497071

View attachment 497094

View attachment 497081

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 4-shot group is 0.534 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.601 MOA
Median 10-shot group is 0.790 MOA
Median 20-shot group is 0.906 MOA
Overall 30-shot group is 1.085 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

===========================
I'm being told that's 10 photos, but that's 3 different barrels using 3 different factory ammo. I’ve gone through that exercise many times over the last several years with different barrels & exclusively shooting factory ammo. I've used some boutique ammo suppliers, but I've never tried the "tuning" packs. I’ve posted several other of these 20 – 30+ shot groups on here, and some I don’t go through the effort of posting on here. The theoretical statistical factors are based on a normal distribution, and I’ve found those factors to be generally applicable to the barrels & ammo that I use.

As part of this exercise, I also track zero location relative to round count as I’ve been interested in how many shots I should really be using to achieve an appropriate zero. Based on the barrels & ammo that I use, I’ve found that 5 – 7 rounds gets me an adequate zero, and there really isn’t anything to gain beyond that. Even after these 20 – 30 shot “dot drills” I continue to compare (and sometimes aggregate) data from subsequent smaller round count groups. For my uses, there is not a significant difference between a 5-7 round group zero and a 30+ round group zero – meaning I cannot dial or hold the difference through the supersonic range. As much as I don’t like saying it, you can do a lot with a 3-round group in terms of zero. Of course, an inexperienced shooter and/or someone using substandard gear will do more harm than good with a 3-shot group.

I've also received some PMs over time, and I've taken a look at data from other members that would perform a similar "dot drill" exercise. An interesting trend I've noticed is that group zero location tends to get further from aggregate center from about 5 - 10 rounds(ish) and then converge back from about 10 - 15 rounds(ish). A likely cause could just be shooter fatigue/attention, but it's interesting to see the trend of larger round counts corresponding to poorer data.

It's also worth noting that if you are solely considering group ES, larger round count groups are probably not the way to go since you lose a ton of data resolution and you're making decisions based on 2-data points. A 30 round group is not the same as 30 rounds that are individually tracked (like I'm doing in the above examples). Shooting several smaller round count groups is likely a better way to go for most people if you want to work with good data.

I'm not advocating that anyone shoot 3-shot groups or 500-shot groups or anything in between. I'm just sharing data/experience, what works for me as a nobody/hobbyist in real life, and the why behind it.

WOW! You are a gem to this place! Thank you for that post.

 

[Flyjunky]

Because it "works" for them. I'm not saying it doesn't but in seeing the comments on accurate shooter forum by BR guys, I don't think any of them have tested those changes with a larger sample size and they don't seem to be willing to.

The Hornady guys also said that in the tests THEY have done, it doesn't make a meaningful difference. The ballisitician proposed that seating depth could make a significant difference in certain chambers due to the design or cartridge size. Say the variance in chamber pressure is what causes most of the dispersion. If you change the seating depth in a 30-378wby by 0.050, you're not changing the volume of that case by much in comparison to changing the seating depth by 0.050 in something like a 30BR. The larger % change in case volume theoretically would have a greater impact on chamber pressure or the pressure curve.

Also mentioned was the idea that if you have a system where everything is finely tuned to a very high precision, like a F1 car or rocket engine, changing a variable just a little will have a relatively large impact on the performance. Of course, those are engines and these are rifles so it's not a 1:1 comparison. I would like to see this tested in a good BR rifle with no environmental influences like wind and mirage in a large sample size.

If they are shooting and getting the results they desire, why would they want to waste barrel life, components, etc on larger groups?

In one of my 300wm that has a custom chamber for a specific bullet seating depth changes made a big difference. Group sizes between .005 and .045 was very noticeable.

That’s the rub of their testing in my opinion. How good were their components to begin with? Did they do any adjusting as barrel life progressed?

You probably saw this on AS.

Hornady Eposode 50 @ 47:30.
Thirty 3-shot groups, the smallest was 0.2" and largest was 1.1". Averages about 0.5".
Twenty 5-shot groups, the smallest was 0.25" and the largest was 1.4".

Top short range br shooters would be appalled with a 1.1” or 1.4” group, no matter how many they shot. When they are shooting an agg of .15-.29 at 300 yards, a group like the guys at Hornady were getting at 100 yards says precision components weren’t used from the start.

My point being, if you aren’t setup from the start with components and an intention to shoot extremely small than how can you say the methods others are using who are actually shooting small aren’t relevant, or their 3/5 group testing methods don’t work?

For posterity......or for anyone that cares.

5/5/2020: "off the shelf" copper creek loaded 140 Berger Elite Hunter out of a 22" Bartlein
View attachment 497046

View attachment 497047

View attachment 497108

Median 3-shot group is 0.399 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.557 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 1.023 MOA (with called flier); 0.78 MOA (excluding called flier)

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

As an aside, if people are interested in having quality data, they need to be able to call shooter errors. You can't discard a shot just because you don't like it, you can't keep a knowingly bad shot either (regardless of where it landed). In the above example, the statistical factors actually back-up the called flier.

----------------------------------------------
7/24/2020: Factory Prime 130 OTM out of a 26" Benchmark
View attachment 497057

View attachment 497059

View attachment 497062

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.410 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 0.650 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

----------------------------------------------
8/25/2022: Factory Hornady 108 ELDM out of 26" SS Proof barrel
View attachment 497071

View attachment 497094

View attachment 497081

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 4-shot group is 0.534 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.601 MOA
Median 10-shot group is 0.790 MOA
Median 20-shot group is 0.906 MOA
Overall 30-shot group is 1.085 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

===========================
I'm being told that's 10 photos, but that's 3 different barrels using 3 different factory ammo. I’ve gone through that exercise many times over the last several years with different barrels & exclusively shooting factory ammo. I've used some boutique ammo suppliers, but I've never tried the "tuning" packs. I’ve posted several other of these 20 – 30+ shot groups on here, and some I don’t go through the effort of posting on here. The theoretical statistical factors are based on a normal distribution, and I’ve found those factors to be generally applicable to the barrels & ammo that I use.

As part of this exercise, I also track zero location relative to round count as I’ve been interested in how many shots I should really be using to achieve an appropriate zero. Based on the barrels & ammo that I use, I’ve found that 5 – 7 rounds gets me an adequate zero, and there really isn’t anything to gain beyond that. Even after these 20 – 30 shot “dot drills” I continue to compare (and sometimes aggregate) data from subsequent smaller round count groups. For my uses, there is not a significant difference between a 5-7 round group zero and a 30+ round group zero – meaning I cannot dial or hold the difference through the supersonic range. As much as I don’t like saying it, you can do a lot with a 3-round group in terms of zero. Of course, an inexperienced shooter and/or someone using substandard gear will do more harm than good with a 3-shot group.

I've also received some PMs over time, and I've taken a look at data from other members that would perform a similar "dot drill" exercise. An interesting trend I've noticed is that group zero location tends to get further from aggregate center from about 5 - 10 rounds(ish) and then converge back from about 10 - 15 rounds(ish). A likely cause could just be shooter fatigue/attention, but it's interesting to see the trend of larger round counts corresponding to poorer data.

It's also worth noting that if you are solely considering group ES, larger round count groups are probably not the way to go since you lose a ton of data resolution and you're making decisions based on 2-data points. A 30 round group is not the same as 30 rounds that are individually tracked (like I'm doing in the above examples). Shooting several smaller round count groups is likely a better way to go for most people if you want to work with good data.

I'm not advocating that anyone shoot 3-shot groups or 500-shot groups or anything in between. I'm just sharing data/experience, what works for me as a nobody/hobbyist in real life, and the why behind it.

nice work, thanks.

 

[wind gypsy]

For posterity......or for anyone that cares.

5/5/2020: "off the shelf" copper creek loaded 140 Berger Elite Hunter out of a 22" Bartlein
View attachment 497046

View attachment 497047

View attachment 497108

Median 3-shot group is 0.399 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.557 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 1.023 MOA (with called flier); 0.78 MOA (excluding called flier)

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

As an aside, if people are interested in having quality data, they need to be able to call shooter errors. You can't discard a shot just because you don't like it, you can't keep a knowingly bad shot either (regardless of where it landed). In the above example, the statistical factors actually back-up the called flier.

----------------------------------------------
7/24/2020: Factory Prime 130 OTM out of a 26" Benchmark
View attachment 497057

View attachment 497059

View attachment 497062

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.410 MOA
Overall 20-shot group is 0.650 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

----------------------------------------------
8/25/2022: Factory Hornady 108 ELDM out of 26" SS Proof barrel
View attachment 497071

View attachment 497094

View attachment 497081

Median 3-shot group is 0.309 MOA
Median 4-shot group is 0.534 MOA
Median 5-shot group is 0.601 MOA
Median 10-shot group is 0.790 MOA
Median 20-shot group is 0.906 MOA
Overall 30-shot group is 1.085 MOA

The theoretical statistical factors are within percentage points of this real life exercise. Any discrepancy is likely due to shooter error and/or sample size.

===========================
I'm being told that's 10 photos, but that's 3 different barrels using 3 different factory ammo. I’ve gone through that exercise many times over the last several years with different barrels & exclusively shooting factory ammo. I've used some boutique ammo suppliers, but I've never tried the "tuning" packs. I’ve posted several other of these 20 – 30+ shot groups on here, and some I don’t go through the effort of posting on here. The theoretical statistical factors are based on a normal distribution, and I’ve found those factors to be generally applicable to the barrels & ammo that I use.

As part of this exercise, I also track zero location relative to round count as I’ve been interested in how many shots I should really be using to achieve an appropriate zero. Based on the barrels & ammo that I use, I’ve found that 5 – 7 rounds gets me an adequate zero, and there really isn’t anything to gain beyond that. Even after these 20 – 30 shot “dot drills” I continue to compare (and sometimes aggregate) data from subsequent smaller round count groups. For my uses, there is not a significant difference between a 5-7 round group zero and a 30+ round group zero – meaning I cannot dial or hold the difference through the supersonic range. As much as I don’t like saying it, you can do a lot with a 3-round group in terms of zero. Of course, an inexperienced shooter and/or someone using substandard gear will do more harm than good with a 3-shot group.

I've also received some PMs over time, and I've taken a look at data from other members that would perform a similar "dot drill" exercise. An interesting trend I've noticed is that group zero location tends to get further from aggregate center from about 5 - 10 rounds(ish) and then converge back from about 10 - 15 rounds(ish). A likely cause could just be shooter fatigue/attention, but it's interesting to see the trend of larger round counts corresponding to poorer data.

It's also worth noting that if you are solely considering group ES, larger round count groups are probably not the way to go since you lose a ton of data resolution and you're making decisions based on 2-data points. A 30 round group is not the same as 30 rounds that are individually tracked (like I'm doing in the above examples). Shooting several smaller round count groups is likely a better way to go for most people if you want to work with good data.

I'm not advocating that anyone shoot 3-shot groups or 500-shot groups or anything in between. I'm just sharing data/experience, what works for me as a nobody/hobbyist in real life, and the why behind it.

That is some great stuff.

IMO the idea that we need a 10+ shot zero error applies largely to PRS style steel matches where people are shooting at more 1 - 2 MOA targets and 0.1 or 0.2 mil error in zero will likely result in some drop shots over 200 rounds if they don't recognize it. The vast majority of hunters shouldn't be shooting at 2 MOA sized vitals. 0.1 mil zero error is still tiny compared to the lack of almost all shooter abilities when it comes to hunting situations.

The precision of your groups speaks to you and your equipment's abilities. I doubt 99% of roksliders would match it with their hunting setup. So It makes sense that your smaller shot groups would be less likely to have significant error in them.

The value of this whole discussion IMO is folks just understanding what their small groups are/aren't telling them and also to quit wasting so much damn time and money on load dev.

 

[wind gypsy]

If they are shooting and getting the results they desire, why would they want to waste barrel life, components, etc on larger groups?

In one of my 300wm that has a custom chamber for a specific bullet seating depth changes made a big difference. Group sizes between .005 and .045 was very noticeable.

That’s the rub of their testing in my opinion. How good were their components to begin with? Did they do any adjusting as barrel life progressed?

You probably saw this on AS.

Hornady Eposode 50 @ 47:30.
Thirty 3-shot groups, the smallest was 0.2" and largest was 1.1". Averages about 0.5".
Twenty 5-shot groups, the smallest was 0.25" and the largest was 1.4".

Top short range br shooters would be appalled with a 1.1” or 1.4” group, no matter how many they shot. When they are shooting an agg of .15-.29 at 300 yards, a group like the guys at Hornady were getting at 100 yards says precision components weren’t used from the start.

My point being, if you aren’t setup from the start with components and an intention to shoot extremely small than how can you say the methods others are using who are actually shooting small aren’t relevant, or their 3/5 group testing methods don’t work?

nice work, thanks.

Good point. It seems the takeaways are meant to be applied more to practical shooting (PRS, LR hunting) than benchrest.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

since this is all pointing to rifle shots following a normal distribution, it would stand to reason that in benchrest applications the same normal distribution principles hold true, with much, much smaller standard deviations and more repeatable mean radii. To some extent, I think this is acutally supported by BR results. BR groups are not identical in each round, and the entire aggregate scoring concept is simply a way of averaging the group sizes over the match, rather than saying your score is only as good as your worst group - or as good as your best group. This makes sense from a BR competition standpoint - you wouldn't want guys just quitting in the middle of the competition because of a single bad shot that can't possibly be redeemed. Likewise, if one guy lays down a world recored screamer on the first round at a major match, you don't want everyone else to forfeit because winning is now impossible.

However, as a hunter, I think it's more reasonable to argue that my weapon's performance is best characterized by the real mechanical accuracy (i.e. the statistically valid group size). If I miss or wound an animal because of a mechanical accuracy issue (I do everything perfect, round lands inside the total cone but outside my "aggregate" cone), it doesn't really matter that I'd "average" out to making that shot. Ignoring the extreme spread/tails of my precision distribution caught up to me, and as a hunter - I suck that day. Or, possibly that season, shot opportunities are not guaranteed where I hunt.

 

[Flyjunky]

Good point. It seems the takeaways are meant to be applied more to practical shooting (PRS, LR hunting) than benchrest.

Correct, my take away as well.

Looking at my notes from last year I put 317 rounds through my 300wm. Other than foulers after cleaning most of those are 3-5 shot strings. Does it really matter if I shoot a 30 round group? My groups are checked over many days, conditions, and my own good/bad days. If I need to adjust something after several bad groups, I will. Typically one load isn’t going to be the same throughout the barrel life of a rifle, it’s an ongoing effort.

 

[dingle]

Neither Form or Hornady is saying all the various methods of "load development" are wrong. They are saying that they aren't statistically sound methods.

I hesitate to wade in too far here, but have we considered that using one's preferred "load development" tends to:

-make the shooter more confident in having reduced variables, and
-that confidence leads to better shooting habits, and
-those better shooting habits, unconscious as they may be, lead to smaller groups (that would - erroneously - be attributed completely to the "load development" method itself)?

Statistically sound and blind test evidence corrects for personal bias, the acceptance of flyers, and the like. But isn't merely feeling confident in one's own preferred variable reduction procedure enough to help permit shot execution to improve?

Somewhere in this debate between people feeling the statistics are telling them they're wrong and measured holes in paper is the importance of the human unconscious in shot execution taking over from the chemical and mechanical factors in influencing those paper holes.

 

[BjornF16]

@TK-421

What rifles / rifle weights are those results from?

 

[Flyjunky]

@TK-421

What rifles / rifle weights are those results from?

Also, scope please.

 

[Formidilosus]

I hesitate to wade in too far here, but have we considered that using one's preferred "load development" tends to:

-make the shooter more confident in having reduced variables, and
-that confidence leads to better shooting habits, and
-those better shooting habits, unconscious as they may be, lead to smaller groups (that would - erroneously - be attributed completely to the "load development" method itself)?

Statistically sound and blind test evidence corrects for personal bias, the acceptance of flyers, and the like. But isn't merely feeling confident in one's own preferred variable reduction procedure enough to help permit shot execution to improve?

Somewhere in this debate between people feeling the statistics are telling them they're wrong and measured holes in paper is the importance of the human unconscious in shot execution taking over from the chemical and mechanical factors in influencing those paper holes.

You opened it, so…. grin


So yes, and no. “Confidence” is great right up until the point where someone was confident they could do something, and weren’t able to do that thing. Then, they tend to completely fall apart. The is is seen in matches where people show up confident they can shoot well, fail miserably on the first stage, and then the train comes off the track.
You can see that in here with stories of lots of people that are super “confident” they can backcountry hunt, then they drive 20 hours, get to the trailhead, hike in, spend one night, freak out, and make any excuse they can to go home.

Both of those are because of “confidence”- actually false confidence. Confidence is really- false confidence. What people need is reality. Adults shooting rifles should not be little children that you need to clap when they tie their shoes, and encourage to jump in the pool.
“Knowledge” is what people need. People need to stop being lied to, led on, and encouraged to do be confident- they need the truth. Confidence is a feeling, knowledge is reality. Knowledge is knowing exactly what one can do at any given moment with a given circumstance.

Everything has a failure rate, and if I am “confident” that I can do this thing, but I draw one of the failure times- what do I do? My whole schitck was based on my confidence. If however, I know that I have approximately an 80% chance on this thing, then when the 20% happens I am prepared.

 

[dieselchessy]

View attachment 497062


View attachment 497081

Looking at your Excel spread sheets your Elevation and Windage offset "MAX" and "MIN" values are the largest positive number and the largest negative number.
Those values wouldn't necessarily be correct if what you really wanted was the "Maximum offset" and "Minimum Offset", but maybe I'm not understanding your end goal.

In your top spread sheet I'd say your Maximum Elevation Offset = -0.5600 and your Minimum Elevation Offset = -0.0014

I'm also not sure on your running small group size columns. Its a running tally of the last 3, 4, 5, ect... shots. So it calculates and averages numerically ordered 3 consecutive shot groups, but doesn't capture the smallest possible 3 shot group or the largest possible 3 shot group if shots were considered in other than consecutive order.
Not that I think it matters, just thought it odd that the spread sheet doesn't tell you the largest possible 3 shot group in the string or the smallest possible three shot group in the string, but instead gathers values from numerically ordered selections of consecutive 3 shot strings. Would seem to me to be random in nature.

I'm not a statistical analyst in any way shape or form, so my caveman level understanding of the data could be way off base.

 

[wind gypsy]

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here. In my experience, and shown in my previous examples, the higher round count zero location provides extremely minimal gains over a +/- 5-shot zero location (and most 3-shot zero locations would work for most applications). We're talking hundredths of an inch of a difference (thousandths of a mil). I'm hard pressed to think of a circumstance where it would matter. Here's a table showing the group center location for 3-round, 4-shot, 5-round, 10-round, and the overall 30-round group:

I worded that poorly but looking at your numbers, you're right. Even with 10 shot groups compared to 5 shot groups, you'd have a 0.1 mil windage error (rounding to nearest 0.1) on roughly the same % of groups. What I was trying to say that worrying about a 0.1 mil error might make sense for competitive steel shooting where one could come up with a scenario where it could result in dropped some shots but doesn't really amount to anything for what most hunters are doing.

 

[Lawnboi]

I worded that poorly but looking at your numbers, you're right. Even with 10 shot groups compared to 5 shot groups, you'd have a 0.1 mil windage error (rounding to nearest 0.1) on roughly the same % of groups. What I was trying to say that worrying about a 0.1 mil error might make sense for competitive steel shooting where one could come up with a scenario where it could result in dropped some shots but doesn't really amount to anything for what most hunters are doing.

I think it makes a difference. I like to be precise. Given what most shooters 10 shot groups probably look at, and given that most are shooting potentially 1.5-2moa rifles, I can see it being more than a tenth easily.

The bigger the rifle/shooter shoots, the more large round count groups make a difference

 

[Harvey_NW]

I'm just a guy on Rokslide trying to learn about how to load more efficiently and shoot better. But I have a question, and an insufficient amount of data to substantiate anything, but still something. What if the result does seem to be repeatable?

These are results from my Tikka custom 280ai, that I committed what some would consider cardinal sins, from the first round. I did a Bartlein recommended break in procedure (blasphemy, right?), and immediately started load development (on a new barrel!?) using the Satterlee method (zero statistical value) because at the time, it made sense. I do not claim to be an expert shooter or reloader, and the component shortage hindered my ability to test these theories first hand to gain experience, so this is what I have.

Initial 12 shot charge ladder over 4.4gr of H4831SC. Once fired Hornady brass not in my chamber, 100pcs bought from a buddy and sent through a FL Redding sizing die. 3fps velocity spread at charges 10 (58) and 11 (58.4). 4 shot test groups at listed charges, the one shot at 2791fps had resistance on bolt close and I realized they didn't all size consistently and I didn't chamber check every piece, but I sent it anyway just to see. Loaded a bunch at 58.4gr and tuned my calculator/validated ballistics, and went hunting.


I came across some regular H4831 and wanted to try it being a little chunkier than SC. It shares the same load data. Other than the very slight shift left from the original group shot in October 2021 at 1640' elevation, 58.2/58.4 still shot extremely well in August 2022 at 2600' elevation. Round count around 120ish, avg velocity 2800fps.


I don't take pictures every time I shoot a group, but every time I did a zero check at 100 yards, 58.4 seemed to repeat a small group and proceed to hit targets down range. I never saw any big swings in velocity, the slight increase could be attributed to the temp difference between October and August, the 120 round count, or the change in powder. Still what I would consider repeatable.

So yes, and no. “Confidence” is great right up until the point where someone was confident they could do something, and weren’t able to do that thing. Then, they tend to completely fall apart.

The one picture I forgot to take. Because of reading a ton of what you've posted, I shot a 10 shot group to see if my aggregate zero was in fact where I needed it, and if my load would hold true. By no means was it ".25 MOA all day", but it blew the dot out of the cardboard with no fliers.

I am by no means trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to figure out why I keep seeing that results of load development aren't repeatable, yet they seem to be for me. Or does 12 different charges into nearly 1 MOA just prove that Kampfeld built me an awesome rifle and it probably won't matter? I recently located some more components and hope to do more shooting soon.

 

[Lawnboi]

Interesting conversation. And largely, I’m glad glad Hornady came out with the information to bring more light to it. Because I like many spent a lot of time trying to make loads work when it would have been smarter to shoot a bullet the barrel likes.

@harvey_nw looks like about what I expect from a bartlein. It’s nice when that happens, sure makes it easy.

 

[Formidilosus]

Or does 12 different charges into nearly 1 MOA just prove that Kampfeld built me an awesome rifle and it probably won't matter?

This is it.

I would bet you a new barrel, that a 50 shot group at 58.4gr will be statistically inseparable from a 50 shot group 58gr- or any other.

However, let’s say that 58.4gr is “better” by .2 MOA. How? Pressure is velocity. Because the ES of MV at a single charge weight is larger than the difference between 58gr and 58.4 gr in all likelihood- then there really can’t be a large (useful) difference. And, again ignoring that and saying there is a .2 MOA difference in group size between 58 and 58.4gr, since pressure is velocity and that’s what changing charge weight does functionally- how are you dealing with throat wear? You shoot a hundred rounds or whatever, and now the 58.4gr charge has the same pressure as the 58.2 or 58gr charge did in the beginning- how do deal with that? Are you going to rework the load every 100 or 200, or 500 rounds depending on chambering?

Then, ignoring all that and you do get a specific seating depth to the 5 thousandth’s, charge weight to the kernel, etc. and it results in .2 MOA better precision- what does .2 MOA get you in results on hitting targets? How is that measurably useful?

 

[Clark33]

I went out and did a 20 shot group at 100 yds.

The set up and ammo (Federal GMM 105 Berger)


My POA was the orange “10”, I dialed up 0.5 mil so my POA wouldn’t get shot out. I shot 1-20 with the 0.5 mil up, returned turret to zero and shot number 21 at same POA “10”.



I don’t think I’m going to mess with anything.

 

[Harvey_NW]

@harvey_nw looks like about what I expect from a bartlein. It’s nice when that happens, sure makes it easy.

Hell yeah it does, I've been extremely happy with it.

This is it.

Figured so.

However, let’s say that 58.4gr is “better” by .2 MOA. How? Pressure is velocity. Because the ES of MV at a single charge weight is larger than the difference between 58gr and 58.4 gr in all likelihood- then there really can’t be a large (useful) difference. And, again ignoring that and saying there is a .2 MOA difference in group size between 58 and 58.4gr, since pressure is velocity and that’s what changing charge weight does functionally- how are you dealing with throat wear? You shoot a hundred rounds or whatever, and now the 58.4gr charge has the same pressure as the 58.2 or 58gr charge did in the beginning- how do deal with that? Are you going to rework the load every 100 or 200, or 500 rounds depending on chambering?

Then, ignoring all that and you do get a specific seating depth to the 5 thousandth’s, charge weight to the kernel, etc. and it results in .2 MOA better precision- what does .2 MOA get you in results on hitting targets? How is that measurably useful?

Makes sense, thanks for the input. Honestly with a 280ai being a less than optimal chambering on a Tikka, I planned on just shooting whatever charge at mag length initially showed promise until accuracy diminished. Hopefully a long time and a large round count.

 

[Gargoyle]

I went out and did a 20 shot group at 100 yds.

The set up and ammo (Federal GMM 105 Berger)
View attachment 497302

My POA was the orange “10”, I dialed up 0.5 mil so my POA wouldn’t get shot out. I shot 1-20 with the 0.5 mil up, returned turret to zero and shot number 21 at same POA “10”.

View attachment 497303

I don’t think I’m going to mess with anything.

You tossed it into the range dumpster afterwards, right?

I bet it groups even better doing two shot groups over time. Heat probably opened it a bit.

 

[Formidilosus]

I went out and did a 20 shot group at 100 yds.

The set up and ammo (Federal GMM 105 Berger)
View attachment 497302

My POA was the orange “10”, I dialed up 0.5 mil so my POA wouldn’t get shot out. I shot 1-20 with the 0.5 mil up, returned turret to zero and shot number 21 at same POA “10”.

View attachment 497303

I don’t think I’m going to mess with anything.

There is no game animal, at any range, that you will miss because of precision.