Range reports B.S.?

[28Shooter]

I wish I was good with a rifle and could post one ragged hole photos. Mine would look like patterning goose loads on a bed sheet.
Just not good with distance shooting.
Slight tremor, ADD, caffeine, old man eyes and any other excuse out there.

Same here save the ADD. And open sights past 25 yards...ugh!

 

[trickg]

I look for key phrases in most people’s written range report reviews:
“It’s a (insert miniscule numerical measurement here) MOA gun ALL DAY LONG”.
AND
They ALWAYS feel the need to add the exact same qualifier - “as long as I do my part”.

The small MOA number is always intended to shock or surprise the reader or viewer, usually given that’s is almost always in reference to a firearm that by our experiences or by history isn’t known to be quite that accurate.

Their qualifier is so that if any of us challenges that person to duplicate those results in person or with witnesses, well they were simply “off their game that day” or they “didn’t do their part”.

I tune out or off whenever the above statements are made during a written or video review. As soon as someone includes these sentences in the review, I know they’re lying or at a minimum, exaggerating.

Interesting - I’ve used some of those but didn’t think I was BS’ing when I did.

I have posted some of my best targets on good range days and I try to qualify that the targets were the best of the bunch.

There is also such a thing as doing your part, or failing to do your part, as the shooter behind a good gun. I built a rifle that is pretty special, at least at ranges out to 100 yards- I haven't actually shot at a target beyond that distance. I’ve shot some pretty solid targets with it. I also failed with it pretty spectacularly in a prairie dog town - wasn’t reading wind or distance worth a damn and missed more than I hit with a rifle and load capable of cloverleafs at 100 yards.

I’ve also had awful days with it at the range. One day I went out with the intention of shooting small groups, but it was hot, my heart was beating hard, and the crosshair was jumping all over - I didn’t do worth a damn that day either.

No one is going to post and brag about crappy shooting or guns that aren’t very accurate.

This is some shooting from good days - does anyone really take pics of targets from bad days unless they are looking for help to diagnose a load problem?

Note: Last pic with the dime was at 50 yards. The other two were at 100. I've gotten enough similar results with that rifle to show two things: I can be a good marksman, and the rifle is a good rifle. The battleship target isn't mine - that one was my nephew's.

 

[alucard0822]

Actual group sizes are kinda pointless in user reviews, outside of showing a problem, or some class of firearm where it matters, like a precision rifle. Most of the time I want to know how a firearm handles, if the controls and grip are in the right place, if the trigger sucks, and so on. If people insist on group sizes, then a repeatable and comparable test protocol, like a few 5rd groups of different loads from a fixed rest at an appropriate distance might be useful if the human factor is taken out as much as possible. I don't care if someone wants to show off their skills, and I don't want to assume something sucks when the shooter or ammo choice wasn't great, and I don't want a paragraph about the reason for the group to be good/bad/flyers etc. For me, a picture of the firearm in someone's hand(and a known glove size) is more useful than a target peppered with holes all over the place.

 

[mpollan1]

I can speak from experience that when I am at the range in a relaxed atmosphere shooting with my wife my groups are pretty decent, though my wife always out does me. My wife is usually a quarter could cover her groups and a dollar could cover mine.

While I was doing my CCW it was a different scenario for sure. I am a pretty relaxed guy but with having a nerve issue in my right leg from a spine injury. 5 yards group of a half dollar. 10 yard I was at the dollar and with the 15 yard lets just say I scored a 92% where at the range I would be a dollar size cover up.

If you're talking a bill I'm with ya. If Susan B well then I'm out...

 

[Biggfoot44]

I'll modify Alucard's approach slightly :

Knowing grouping capability does matter to a degree .

Important part is : Does it have accuracy reasonably in line with intended purposes/ reasonable expectations ?

If so , finer gradients within that often are of minor to negligible importance.

And of course he is on track with the importance of ergonomics and user friendliness.

 

[Mark75H]

I concur. If it wasn't a $1500+ target rifle with a $2500 scope, I am aways doubtful of claimed cloverleafs at 100y or m. I have such rig and it doesn't do it everyday. Also not impressed by the single 500y/m shots. Show me 2 fired consecutively. Lots of blind squirels that don't starve.

 

[Scottysan]

Interesting - I’ve used some of those but didn’t think I was BS’ing when I did.

I have posted some of my best targets on good range days and I try to qualify that the targets were the best of the bunch.

There is also such a thing as doing your part, or failing to do your part, as the shooter behind a good gun. I built a rifle that is pretty special, at least at ranges out to 100 yards- I haven't actually shot at a target beyond that distance. I’ve shot some pretty solid targets with it. I also failed with it pretty spectacularly in a prairie dog town - wasn’t reading wind or distance worth a damn and missed more than I hit with a rifle and load capable of cloverleafs at 100 yards.

I’ve also had awful days with it at the range. One day I went out with the intention of shooting small groups, but it was hot, my heart was beating hard, and the crosshair was jumping all over - I didn’t do worth a damn that day either.

No one is going to post and brag about crappy shooting or guns that aren’t very accurate.

This is some shooting from good days - does anyone really take pics of targets from bad days unless they are looking for help to diagnose a load problem?

Note: Last pic with the dime was at 50 yards. The other two were at 100. I've gotten enough similar results with that rifle to show two things: I can be a good marksman, and the rifle is a good rifle. The battleship target isn't mine - that one was my nephew's.

View attachment 412019 View attachment 412020 View attachment 412021 View attachment 412022

Hella shootin' TrickG!

 

[Tungsten]

I think a lot of people don't know the difference between yards and feet.

 

[Art3]

...

2) People often/usually measure groups incorrectly. The customary measure is 'center-to-center, widest two shots'. To arrive at this without special tools, they measure the outside-to-outside of the group and subtract bullet diameter, which is wrong and causes groups to look smaller than they really are. Bullets do not make bullet-diameter holes in the target, the holes are always smaller than bullet diameter, even wadcutters, especially spitzers. The correct method is to subtract the actual measure hole diameter or 'grease ring' (easier) diameter from the group's total spread (measured to the actual holes or grease rings).

...

Dumb question...and I'm not trying to be a smartass...does it have to be that complicated and use math? Wouldn't measuring from the outside of one of the two holes to the inside of the other give you center to center?

Or are we talking about groups small enough that there is no inside edge? ( I don't have much experience with those on my targets )

 

[Uncle Duke]

Dumb question...and I'm not trying to be a smartass...does it have to be that complicated and use math? Wouldn't measuring from the outside of one of the two holes to the inside of the other give you center to center?

Or are we talking about groups small enough that there is no inside edge? ( I don't have much experience with those on my targets )

You ask some good questions.

Most of the time, people are referring to extreme spread when referencing group size. If it's oftentimes measured incorrectly, as Mr. Shell notes, it is nonetheless both easy and intuitive to measure, at least somewhat accurately. And it doesn't require a math degree. But, what is it really telling anyone? And is it telling everyone who cares to know the same things? Especially when oftentimes not formulated in the same way? How many shots comes to mind as a big and common variable that oftentimes goes unmentioned in range reports regarding group size.

But there's more than simply extreme spread. In a 3 shot group, is the remaining shot that isn't one of the 2 measured outliers of the 3 shots, of no consequence? Do 3 shots not matter in every 5 shot group fired? Are 8 shots to be dismissed in every 10 shot group fired? And if 3 shots might begin to tell you something about a rifle or a load or both in combination with the shooter, might 5 shots not be telling you more? And 10 shots more still? Well if so, at what cost? And when does one declare that they now know what one needs to know in testing, presumably about the likelihood of and the confidence in where that next shot will impact?

Here's a look a bit further into the weeds for those interested. Some of this begins to wander into head swimming territory, for me at least. Before you give up, the author does a fair job of bringing things back around to where us mere mortals can digest where he's going with some of these thoughts.

Precision & Group Size – Statistics for Shooters Part 3

This article is going to dive into the most effective ways to quantify the precision of a rifle and...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[trickg]

Hella shootin' TrickG!

Thanks! That's a quarter inch gun all day long...if I do my part. (I think with the right load it could be a .25 MOA rifle - I've never achieved that because I'm not that good of a marksman.)

Seriously though, I do try to qualify that when I post a photo of a target, it was the exceptional one of the day.

Here are a couple of targets that IMO are decent for what they were - these were 10 shot groups from a 16" HBAR AR with a 4x LPVO at 50 yards. Certainly not the bug holes, and these were the best targets of the day.

And yes, I'm well aware of the difference between yards and feet.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Why use ES ( center to center of farest shots ) ? It's easy to measure . and most people can intuitively comprehend at least the surface meaning of it . See identical explanation for why Ft Lb of Energy is most common measurement of ( bullet goes smack to what it hits ) for both the general public . and drafters of laws and regulations . ( When ft lb in isolation is a poor predictor )

Firstly , compared to the common assumption/ rationalization to the effect of " eh , it's not important anyway , doesn't mean anything , and I don't even know , etc " . a few groups . measured with a ruler , combined with basic eyeballing . is an exponential step forewards .

Will a cpl center to center ES combined with basic eyeballing be sufficient to be helpful ? Probably for ( significant % of average shooters ) for ( significant % of the time ) , within the typical usage parameters of typical firearms .

Hey Joe , who accurate is your favorite pistol there ?
Damnifino Fred , I only shoot a full size silhouettes at 5yds .
Cool Joe . But I've been thinking about getting one of those Acme Mega Blasters , and I'm curious how it wiil do . Why don't you ( use your preferred accuracy shooting methods ) and try 3 or 5 shots at that paper target over yonder , and let's see .

[ Joe and Fred shoot a cpl groups each. , and as they're walking the 25 yds ( or 15 if that's how you rool ) Fred pulls out his key chain with mini tape measure -]

If it's 1 inch , Joe will justifiably brag to all his shooting buddies .

If it's in the range of 2-3 inches , Fred will say " Cool . typical accuracy , and good enough to not be concerned ." .

If it's 4 inches of more - " Dang Joe , that kinda sucks . Maybe it's those green fur covered relosds in a plastic baggie you bought at the gun show
Let's try again with this again with my brass case name brand factory ammo . "

Joe and Fred found out useful and relavent information without going crosseyed with scientific calculators . Substitute .30-30 or value priced AR with bulk grade ammo at 100 yds for same thing .

If Joe and Fred were comparing their Light Varmint class bench guns , or Class F rifles , then it's time to calculate mean radius , coefficient of variation , and standard deviation .

 

[gforce]

You ask some good questions.

Most of the time, people are referring to extreme spread when referencing group size. If it's oftentimes measured incorrectly, as Mr. Shell notes, it is nonetheless both easy and intuitive to measure, at least somewhat accurately. And it doesn't require a math degree. But, what is it really telling anyone? And is it telling everyone who cares to know the same things? Especially when oftentimes not formulated in the same way? How many shots comes to mind as a big and common variable that oftentimes goes unmentioned in range reports regarding group size.

But there's more than simply extreme spread. In a 3 shot group, is the remaining shot that isn't one of the 2 measured outliers of the 3 shots, of no consequence? Do 3 shots not matter in every 5 shot group fired? Are 8 shots to be dismissed in every 10 shot group fired? And if 3 shots might begin to tell you something about a rifle or a load or both in combination with the shooter, might 5 shots not be telling you more? And 10 shots more still? Well if so, at what cost? And when does one declare that they now know what one needs to know in testing, presumably about the likelihood of and the confidence in where that next shot will impact?

Here's a look a bit further into the weeds for those interested. Some of this begins to wander into head swimming territory, for me at least. Before you give up, the author does a fair job of bringing things back around to where us mere mortals can digest where he's going with some of these thoughts.

Precision & Group Size – Statistics for Shooters Part 3

This article is going to dive into the most effective ways to quantify the precision of a rifle and...

precisionrifleblog.com

Great article, thanks for sharing. I hadn't thought about how many/what size groups would be needed to really proof a load for a particular rifle and how small one time shifts are fairly insignificant.

I attempted a mean distance from center calc by hand on my last set of targets by hand, that was a mistake, it got far too tedious and I defaulted to an extreme spread measurement; glad to know there are app based tools that can take the math out of it for those of us without an affinity for math.

That blog seems to be filled with great information

 

[Garet Jax]

I think a lot of people don't know the difference between yards and feet.

I drink from a yard stick and walk on my feet.

 

[BFMIN]

I call those "Minute of Internet"!
I know one goy on one forum who's so blatant you can see the targets at 15~25 Yds diagonally on the background of his "300Yd sub MOA" targets shot with a box stock Milsurp bolt gun. Everybody knows it but he doesn't seem to care.

 

[Russ D]

I stopped measuring groups and just take a picture and use the apps that calculate them. It’s probably not perfect but they are better and more consistent than I probably my would be with calipers.