Sighting in a rifle

[SCJ429]

Nothing was said by the OP about Target shooting or Competition shooting .

Nothing was said by leafs that this is specifically for hunting. Seems to me he wants to marvel over small groups. Isn't that target shooting?

Sounds reasonable to me, never seen someone shooting groups while out hunting. Seems like a target shooting activity to me.

[Downunder]

Nothing was said by the OP about Target shooting or Competition shooting .

Nothing was said by leafs that this is specifically for hunting. Seems to me he wants to marvel over small groups. Isn't that target shooting?

Sounds reasonable to me, never seen someone shooting groups while out hunting. Seems like a target shooting activity to me.

Consistency is shared attribute.

[bluehorse]

I have watched a few you tube videos where they are getting good groups and then they say the get a flier . This seems to happen often .
Is it the shooter, the ammo, the gun, or something else? I'm having the same problem. Any help Thanks

Age old question ,. I use a powder thrower at times but checkweigh with electronic scales and a tricler too to get betterresults . Also better to check case length each round and also try to use 1 brand of case if u want to have better result for each group u send off . And if this does not help check bedding and screw tensions . Scope mounts can play merry hell too . I had things like 3 shots intersecting at 100 metres measured distance and next three all around the shop inches away , Good old fashioned scope mount problems . It is a real pain working thru all the possibilities systematically but is unwise to hang your hat on 1 cause only . Fliers are endemic problem and to get every shot away like a winner just does not happen in the real world . Perserverence and depending what you are looking for everything could be acceptable if u mark each shot as a kill or no kill on your target . . If you are shooting fox or roo ,pig or the neighbours dogs theiving your chooks a kill shot is a kill flier or not ,. Good luck . P.S be prepared to spend time and effort and plenty of rounds also . no 2 rifles are exactly the same in performance . I have 6 rifles I went thru the process with for roo shooting qualifying . Some took over 100 rounds to bring into this degree of accuracy . and a couples of scopes thrown towards the outhouse . hope this helps ..

[animalpest]

Bluehorse - why did you use 6 different rifles to qualify for roo shooting?

[bladeracer]

Bluehorse - why did you use 6 different rifles to qualify for roo shooting?

He means getting them to shoot sufficiently well to pass the accuracy test.
If I were a roo shooter I'd want to have several of my rifles qualify as well, not just one.
But the roo test is not exactly difficult, virtually any modern rifle should piss it in straight out of the box with factory ammo.
This is the Qld qualifying target at 100 yards or meters, 5rds in 75mm at 100 yards.

Qld Humane target.JPG (69.49 KiB) Viewed 3115 times

https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/68421/humane-shooting-test-target.pdf

[bladeracer]

It depends on what you call accuracy . However most really tight shooting guns show up some accuracy drop off well before 50 uncoated rounds . If the gun shoots larger groups then it's harder to say where accuracy is getting worse .
I shoot moly coated bullets in 223 and don't clean for about 250 to 300 rounds but that's not relevant to this thread either .
30 shots is a good starting place to keep barrel fouling out of the variable equation . How fast a certain barrel fouls compared to another barrel in another gun with different ammo is a highly uncertain thing so applying what you do might be unsuitable for this situation and just create more variables . How dumb would it be for me to advise shooting for 300 rounds before cleaning just because that's what I do ? I am trying to advise sensible starting points to reduce the variables to try and iron out a problem .

I'm talking "practical" accuracy, or field accuracy.
People that chase minuscule groups go to enormous lengths, even down to cleaning the bore for every shot they fire, or building a firearm from hand-fitted parts.
Any firearm that only groups well in a clean bore is useless to me, for all practical purposes.

[bladeracer]

If you want the best number statistically for a good measurements then a sample size of 21 will give you a 2*SD or 99.96% confidence level.A group is more than 3 shots even 5 not enough at least 10

It takes me weeks of matches, at varying ranges, to form an opinion on a load. Granted sling shooting slows this process down, but I am curious how one can “load develop” in groups of 3. Ludicrously small sample sizes…

Wouldn't it be more sensible to use practice sessions to evaluate your load, before taking it into competition?

I agree that 3rd "groups" do not give an accurate indication of how rounds four or five might group, but for a hunting firearm, rounds four and five may well be totally irrelevant.

[in2anity]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to use practice sessions to evaluate your load, before taking it into competition?

I agree that 3rd "groups" do not give an accurate indication of how rounds four or five might group, but for a hunting firearm, rounds four and five may well be totally irrelevant.

Absolutely Blade - that's exactly the case. Grade matches and comps are a lot sparser than the practice days. You only try different loads when there's nothing to be won.

[straightshooter]

It takes me weeks of matches, at varying ranges, to form an opinion on a load.…

Most forum posters will probably overlook just how insightful this statement is and it deserves further elaboration.
The real insight the statement presents is that in the end the real test of a load is how it performs in the circumstances of it's intended use. For example a load developed on a benchrest is more than likely to shoot to a different group center when shot offhand in the field.
It would be useful to reiterate some relevant shooting related concepts that seem to be underappreciated.
Accuracy and Precision: In general conversation we mostly use these terms rather interchangeably and loosely. A stricter definition might have accuracy as how close we come to the point of aim whereas precision is how close together those shots may be without strict relation to the point of aim.
So the essential difference between the sports of the nature of standard benchrest shooting and of the nature of smallbore and fullbore is apparent. That difference lies in a score based on the size of the group only versus the placement of the group in relation to a scoring target. Notwithstanding some fusions of these sports.
The Shooting Tripod: Ultimately shooting accuracy relies on three legs of support as in a tripod. If any of the legs is unreliable then the tripod is unstable.
Those three legs are the quality of the ammunition, the quality of the rifle and the quality of the shooter.
Another useful concept is embodied in the statement "better is the enemy of good".

[bladeracer]

It takes me weeks of matches, at varying ranges, to form an opinion on a load.…

Most forum posters will probably overlook just how insightful this statement is and it deserves further elaboration.
The real insight the statement presents is that in the end the real test of a load is how it performs in the circumstances of it's intended use. For example a load developed on a benchrest is more than likely to shoot to a different group center when shot offhand in the field.
It would be useful to reiterate some relevant shooting related concepts that seem to be underappreciated.
Accuracy and Precision: In general conversation we mostly use these terms rather interchangeably and loosely. A stricter definition might have accuracy as how close we come to the point of aim whereas precision is how close together those shots may be without strict relation to the point of aim.
So the essential difference between the sports of the nature of standard benchrest shooting and of the nature of smallbore and fullbore is apparent. That difference lies in a score based on the size of the group only versus the placement of the group in relation to a scoring target. Notwithstanding some fusions of these sports.
The Shooting Tripod: Ultimately shooting accuracy relies on three legs of support as in a tripod. If any of the legs is unreliable then the tripod is unstable.
Those three legs are the quality of the ammunition, the quality of the rifle and the quality of the shooter.
Another useful concept is embodied in the statement "better is the enemy of good".

When testing your ammo, you try to take the shooter out of the equation. When you've decided on the best load for the job, you zero from the same position you expect to use in the field. Then you practice with it from a variety of positions, and at different distances.

[in2anity]

It takes me weeks of matches, at varying ranges, to form an opinion on a load.…

Most forum posters will probably overlook just how insightful this statement is and it deserves further elaboration.
The real insight the statement presents is that in the end the real test of a load is how it performs in the circumstances of it's intended use. For example a load developed on a benchrest is more than likely to shoot to a different group center when shot offhand in the field.
It would be useful to reiterate some relevant shooting related concepts that seem to be underappreciated.
Accuracy and Precision: In general conversation we mostly use these terms rather interchangeably and loosely. A stricter definition might have accuracy as how close we come to the point of aim whereas precision is how close together those shots may be without strict relation to the point of aim.
So the essential difference between the sports of the nature of standard benchrest shooting and of the nature of smallbore and fullbore is apparent. That difference lies in a score based on the size of the group only versus the placement of the group in relation to a scoring target. Notwithstanding some fusions of these sports.
The Shooting Tripod: Ultimately shooting accuracy relies on three legs of support as in a tripod. If any of the legs is unreliable then the tripod is unstable.
Those three legs are the quality of the ammunition, the quality of the rifle and the quality of the shooter.
Another useful concept is embodied in the statement "better is the enemy of good".

When testing your ammo, you try to take the shooter out of the equation. When you've decided on the best load for the job, you zero from the same position you expect to use in the field. Then you practice with it from a variety of positions, and at different distances.

For initial load development, yes. But we don't all shoot off bag/bipod. Forend tensions will differ under sling tension, especially for a service rifle, or for that matter potentially any rifle that has a light barrel. Take for example the original M16A1 - under sling tension the gas block actually pulls on the barrel changing the elevation, and no doubt the harmonics, and thus data you've gathered in crossarm or bench stance is somewhat irrelevant. Ultimately you need to be developing an analysis for the load the way you normally shoot the rifle. And that simply takes time and experience.

When it comes to the zero, my sandbag/bipod zero is always different to my sling/offhand zero, and for obvious reasons it's critical to zero your rifle the way you intend to shoot it. I actually come to the right by a couple of minutes for standing/offhand matches because I just know that's where I tend to group from that position it is what it is.

For my little hunting rifle, I split the difference between my prone-sling zero and standing offhand zero. It's rare that I bother searching for some support out bush - I rely on my quick entry ching-sling, and experience, and just assume one of the 3-positions (standing, kneeling/sitting, prone unsupported) we shoot in service, as appropriate for the situation/distance at hand.

[animalpest]

It is interesting how many shooters take 2, 3 or more targets to pass the roo shooters test. Inevitably they are using heavy barreled rifles with high magnification scopes.

There is no requirement to have all of your rifles pass the test. Well not in WA anyway. They don't require you to requaulify if you change scope, barrel etc. Note that the QLD target doesn't even list the rifle or calibre.

In WA you are simply required to use the rifle you will use for roo shooting.

Accuracy is a relative thing. Recently I shot 500 roos on one property. I used a heavy barreled Tikka Varmint .223 and a little Sako Vixen .222 with a light barrel. The roos couldn't tell the difference and both rifles did the job.

[SCJ429]

It is interesting how many shooters take 2, 3 or more targets to pass the roo shooters test. Inevitably they are using heavy barreled rifles with high magnification scopes.
job.

Funny you should say that, it took me three targets to pass my farmer assist target which required a one inch group at 100 metres. I was using a Ruger #1 chambered in 416 Rigby and used a 4x scope.

[bladeracer]

It is interesting how many shooters take 2, 3 or more targets to pass the roo shooters test. Inevitably they are using heavy barreled rifles with high magnification scopes.

There is no requirement to have all of your rifles pass the test. Well not in WA anyway. They don't require you to requaulify if you change scope, barrel etc. Note that the QLD target doesn't even list the rifle or calibre.

In WA you are simply required to use the rifle you will use for roo shooting.

Accuracy is a relative thing. Recently I shot 500 roos on one property. I used a heavy barreled Tikka Varmint .223 and a little Sako Vixen .222 with a light barrel. The roos couldn't tell the difference and both rifles did the job.

I doubt he is suggesting having to re-qualify with different rifles. He just wants to assure himself that the rifles/ammo he might choose to take all qualify for the job.

[animalpest]

I want SCJ429's rifle as my backup roo gun

Yeah did a 1"" group with my 375 with 6x scope. I probably just can't get it to group good all night when doing 50-100 roos. Must be the odd flyer?