What is Good, Great, and Wow Accuracy

  • 2.1K Views
  • Last Post 11 January 2016
John Alexander posted this 09 January 2016

In the current thread on break open rifles we got off on the thread of what is “good” or “great” accuracy for such rifles.  I think a thread on the same question for production or old military rifles could generate some interesting opinions.

I will start not with my opinion of the answer but a bit of data -- and then my opinion.  You knew I couldn't resist. 

 To give a point of reference, and a touch of reality, the shooters who show up at our national match with production rifles (Hunting Rifle Class (9.5 lb.) and Production Class (12 lb.) average 5-shot group aggregates of:

Hunting Rifle -- average about 1.5” at 100 yards

Production --- average about 1.4” at 100 yards

Very few novices show up at these matches and most shooters have the allowed reworked triggers, rebedding, and are using high power scopes. They drive an average of maybe 5-700 miles and probably don't bring their worst rifle or just come to place last. Of course this is the average of four 5-shot groups no excuses -- not best single group, not group measurement after deleting the flier.

The winner of these classes usually has to have an aggregate below 1” but both classes are sometime won by aggregates bigger than 1".  Shooting an honest AVERAGE of less than a inch at 100 yards for five shot groups with with cast bullets in production or old military rifles is not easy. To do it for 10-shot groups is much harder. 

 I think it is human nature to think we are shooting better than we actually are compared to an unmodified average of several consecutive groups. No harm in that maybe (we probably also stretch the fish we catch a bit.)  However, it may be important that we are probably giving beginners (on whom our sport's future depends) a discouraging idea of how their groups compare.

John

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Scearcy posted this 09 January 2016

I did an article called “How good is good enough” for TFS several years ago.  It dealt with several years of experience  with Military rifle matches.  I'll see if I can find it or at least the data.Jim

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 09 January 2016

In my experience tinkering with the old military boltguns, I would define “good” as an average of 2 inches or less for a continuous series of not less than five, 5-shot groups fired with iron sights, or ten shot groups with a military sniper or low-powered hunting scope not to exceed 4X. “Great” accuracy with an iron-sighted rifle is for a similar series of TEN-shot groups to average 2 inches or less. “Wow” would be a series of TEN-shot groups which average 1-1/2 inches or less, with 25 or more shots fired continuously, without discarding any sighters or called fliers, in front of witnesses. I'm still waiting... Everybody has their “bragging group” fired on a good day when the Gods were smiling. Now do it again for me right now.   OK, that was impressive, let's see it again, now... OK you got my attention! Here is “good” performance from an ordinary .30-'06 bolt hunting rifle with 4X scope.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

billwnr posted this 09 January 2016

John, for military rifles accuracy should also be broken down into Issue. Modified Issue and Scope divisions, with Scope being limited to 6x power.

I've heard of some very good groups shot from military rifles with BR class scopes mounted on them. It's different when the power is limited to 6x or issue class since the average shooter is 50+ in age.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 09 January 2016

I think what you got here is apples and kiwi fruit. For newer production/hunting rifles, bolt guns, the vast majority will shoot very well out of the box.  Getting one to shoot cast is relatively easy. Military bolt guns, kiwi fruit. They're all old, the guys who knew how to fiddle with the barrel bands and wood to help them shoot are either dead or old. Or both. The guns have been shot and screwed with until finding one that shoots is a challenge involving money, time and luck. There's probably not one person in 25 in or near the CBA who can reliably shoot 2” groups with a post front sight and ANY rifle. We can't see them. Military bolt guns are fun, but accurate military bolt guns are about buying a lot of rifles, trying them out, selling them and starting over. The post front? No. However, put an aperture front on the gun, and even I can shoot a good gun accurately. And, there's not much difference in accuracy between good irons and scopes. But, as you add 48s and 17as and Timney triggers and scopes, military rifles get less military. This is just my opinion, and I am completely correct. In my opinion. 

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 09 January 2016

This might be the time to bring someting up that I've though about for at least 3 years.

Why are scopes limited to 6X? People that are target shooter want to be able to adjust the parallax and I have only seen a few 6x that can. Weaver T-6 and a few externals, Weaver/Unertl types, I've only seen one other 6X that can be ajusted but, can't recall the brand.

The last Weaver that I saw, went pretty high on Ebay.

Why not allow 8X or 10X for matches? There are a lot of them with parallax adjusting objectives. There is a president for the 8X in WWII, also.

I see a lot of people listing variable scope in Mil but, that seems unfair, at least to me.

What do you think?

Frank

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 09 January 2016

They might be using a variable power scope but, per the rules, the scope is set at the 6x position.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 09 January 2016

Bill, The thing about that is that you don't know how accurate the 6X setting is and you get a much larger objective lens.

A 6 X 24 scope might have a more accurate setting in 6X but, you can get a 50mm adjustable objective (maybe larger?) and still meet the rule.

I think a 8X - 10X fixed would be a more even playing field and the objectives would range a lot closer.

Frank

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 January 2016

Frank, We started out to have 2 1/2 maximum, WWII sniper rifles. But most people wanted to use deer rifle scopes, so the comprise was 6X.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 January 2016

Joe, reread the Issue Rifle aggregates you fixed for me. We know how to make Kiwi' s squirt sub 2 MOA groups. (Pushing 70 still scraping bedding Ric)

Attached Files

norm posted this 09 January 2016

Frankore, I was on the BOD in 2001 when Mike Cristofer made the formal presentation for our military classes. I can't remember much discussion about scope power limits. I have never heard any competitor at a match complain about the scope power limit. I feel we got the rules right back then since we have not made any changes in 15 years.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 10 January 2016

between 6x and 36x i think the max difference in group size is about 0.1 moa .

in military i would worry a lot more about wind drift .

ken

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 10 January 2016

It just seems odd that you can use large objective scopes that don't look anything like a mil scopes of the period. I guess I get that from our ISSA/ASSRA rules for traditional rifles.

I bought a K-6 to use on my P-14 but, it doesn't have a adjustable objective. I then noticed that a lot of guys were using variables and turning them down so, I guess I should replace it if I shoot it in a Mil match. One of the things to do on my bucket list.

I also have a very nice, modified Krag with a Redfield rear sight. I shoot it with the original front sight and have found as good a sight picture, if not better, using a 6 o'clock hold, as my target rifles using a Redfield International with apertures. As my eyes get older, I'm having more trouble with the front sight fussing out and centering the fussed out target in it and the post seems better in that regard.

I also have a question regarding regional matches. Do they all have relays so that you can shoot more than one rifle?

Frank

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 10 January 2016

Frank:

Leupold made their FX3 in a 6 power target scope with adjustable objective until recently. It has a very fine crosshair/target dot reticle and 1/8” click target turrets.

Some of my winter ruminating is being spent contemplating the concept of using a small black dot to aim at the middle of a bigger black dot. Perhaps there's a better option.................:thinking:

John Carlson. CBA Director of Military Competition.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 10 January 2016

Thank you for the info, John.

I believe I have remembered the other scope that I couldn't remember is a 6X Lyman with adj objective so, that makes 3 adj objective 6X scopes, plus, a few externals, all hard to find .

I just read the rules and I believe I will use a 6 x 24 scope and if I can get a deal or a trade on a 6 x 18 Redfield, it will be my first choice.

Anyone want to make a partial trade on a K-6 Weaver for a Redfield?

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 10 January 2016

Ken Campbell Iowa wrote: between 6x and 36x i think the max difference in group size is about 0.1 moa . ken I think the folks who shoot IBS Hunter class with 6X scopes have probable proven that it is even less than that.

And still we have folks saying they don't bring their hot hunting rifle which shoots CBs under 1 MOA all the time to shoot in CBA Hunting Rifle class because other competitors may be using higher power scopes. Perhaps they have another reason?

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2016

To understand how sights and accuracy interact, see below and/or attached. If you want the original Rifleman article, let me know. If you don't care, stop reading.

Attached Files

tturner53 posted this 10 January 2016

You guys will hate me but I can recommend a scope I found real cheap on the web. It's a NcStar 6x42, fixed 6x and has some kind of sniper reticle. Not fancy. Not German glass by a long shot. But I liked the fixed 6x part and price so bought a couple. They've ridden on some rifles for CBA postals and held up to full power loads as well.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 10 January 2016

Joe,

Thanks for sending the sighting error dope. Very interesting. I'm sure I read Moore's article back in 1977, or tried to, since I read all the AR in those days when it was a shooting magazine.  Strangely I seem to have forgotten some of it.  Your post was labeled “8.3 Factors of Sighting Error” but 8.3 in your book (I think mine is the second edition but it isn't identified) isn't on that subject Where do I find the right 8.3? What CD is it on if any?

The table was pretty badly mutilated by going through cyber space.  I would like to look at the chart but hate puzzles and would rather not try to figure it our.

Having shot small bore in my wasted youth I am not surprised that iron sights can result in precise bullet placement on a target.  The situation is quite different in the field as I found out early by squirrel hunting.  Not only are they not round and black but front apertures are useless and posts move depending on which direction the light is coming from and when light dims it get much worse, even with a huge rear aperture, while a scope is still usable.

John 

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2016

John Alexander wrote: Joe,

Thanks for sending the sighting error dope. Very interesting. I'm sure I read Moore's article back in 1977, or tried to, since I read all the AR in those days when it was a shooting magazine.  Strangely I seem to have forgotten some of it.  Your post was labeled “8.3 Factors of Sighting Error” but 8.3 in your book (I think mine is the second edition but it isn't identified) isn't on that subject Where do I find the right 8.3? What CD is it on if any?

The table was pretty badly mutilated by going through cyber space.  I would like to look at the chart but hate puzzles and would rather not try to figure it our.

Having shot small bore in my wasted youth I am not surprised that iron sights can result in precise bullet placement on a target.  The situation is quite different in the field as I found out early by squirrel hunting.  Not only are they not round and black but front apertures are useless and posts move depending on which direction the light is coming from and when light dims it get much worse, even with a huge rear aperture, while a scope is still usable.

John  This is in the appendix to the 3rd edition. AND, it's in 7.3 of the delightful and fascinating-beautifully written/copied second edition.Squirril hunting? John, repeat after me: ARBYS, BURGER KING, IN AND OUT BURGER

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 10 January 2016

I must correct this: In the ASSRA matches, I believe that it was Dick Hughes that shot the first 250 at 200 yards with Iron Sights a few years ago. The 25 ring on the German Ring target is 1 3/4". Several other 250 scores have been shot since. I remember watching Jerry Ventura shoot the first record 250 with a scope on a Model 44 Stevens at Western New York/Alabama Hunt Club, maybe a dozen years ago. So the Irons aren't a great handicap.I don't know who Dick Hughes is and there is no record of him shooting a iron sight 250 but, yes Jerry Ventura was the very first to shoot a 250 in 1988, with a scope. Also, the ASSRA/ISSA 25 ring is 1.5” in diameter.ASSRA has two sets of records. One for “their” Beeson range ('National Records) in IN and another for everyone else (ASSRA Records).These are the records for iron sights And Bev Pinney was the first and only  250: ASSRA MATCH RECORDS  : Brockway MatchBenchrest, 10 shots for score, iron sights, reentry 250-10C    Bev Pinney             1997     ASSRA NATIONAL MATCH RECORDS   Brockway Match: Benchrest, 10 shots for score, iron sights, reentry 249-9        Jim Borton            1996 Resently there has been at least one (I think 2) 248's shot with a 25 cal, using iron sights, by Jerry Hartwig. No separate  record for 25's. These are all shot at 200 yards. In comparison, there have been at least 100, 250's shot with scopes, since 1993 and along time between Jerry's and '93. 4 of the 250's have been shot by Jerry Hartwig's 25 cal in the last 4 years. Maybe it's easier to shoot irons at 100 yd but, it certanly isn't at 200 yards and in the bigger matches, where most of the 250's are shot, there are appox. the same number of iron and scope matches. We don't shoot iron sight group matches or Joe could do the math on the differential but, by the scores shot, it's more that 100 times harder to pick up one or two point with irons. Frank

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close