AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:02:43 PM EDT
|
A lot of new users/shooters are asking these questions: How accurate is this gun going to be? How accurate is this barrel? How accurate are these bullets?
Bottom-line-up-front: Guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, bullets aren't accurate. People are. Here's the explanation: A gun is a machine, albeit a very simple one with few moving parts. It interacts with distant objects (targets) with an output device (a bullet). I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. Your gun is more like a pen in this respect. You, the shooter, are the device that determines where the ink goes to make the picture on the target. The next question I usually get after that one is this: then why are some guns or gun parts better than others? That's pretty simple to explain: consistency. You want a gun that has parts that perform in a predictable and consistent manner. Remove variables wherever you find them. You ever write with a pen and the ink "skips"? Yeah, that's a malfunction. You ever run out of ink? Reload. Guns aren't accurate, people are. |
|
Quoted:
A lot of new users/shooters are asking these questions: How accurate is this gun going to be? How accurate is this barrel? How accurate are these bullets? Bottom-line-up-front: Guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, bullets aren't accurate. People are. Here's the explanation: A gun is a machine, albeit a very simple one with few moving parts. It interacts with distant objects (targets) with an output device (a bullet). I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. Your gun is more like a pen in this respect. You, the shooter, are the device that determines where the ink goes to make the picture on the target. The next question I usually get after that one is this: then why are some guns or gun parts better than others? That's pretty simple to explain: consistency. You want a gun that has parts that perform in a predictable and consistent manner. Remove variables wherever you find them. You ever write with a pen and the ink "skips"? Yeah, that's a malfunction. You ever run out of ink? Reload. Guns aren't accurate, people are. Close, guns are repeatable. Acurracy and precision relate to repeatability. The fire arms system must have a high level of accuacy and precision to make it repeatable. People are the reproducibility component. |
|
Quoted:...
Close, guns are repeatable. Acurracy and precision relate to repeatability. The fire arms system must have a high level of accuacy and precision to make it repeatable. People are the reproducibility component. Quoted:...
Close, guns are repeatable. Acurracy and precision relate to repeatability. The fire arms system must have a high level of accuacy and precision to make it repeatable. People are the reproducibility component. I disagree. In shooting, the two biggest sources of inconsistency between shots are: 1. The environment. 2. User error. The gun will simply perform in accordance within inherent mechanical tolerances and outside forces. Noun 1. reproducibility - the quality of being reproducible. The user is a variable, not a constant. |
|
I think you've very much simplified and generalized your argument.
While I'll agree guns are typically more accurate then the shooter. To say it's all on the shooter seems to be a limited view. I would agree with your statement more if you left ammo off of it. You imply that wolf, FGMM and custom hand loads will preform to the limit of the gun and the shooter is why they print different? |
|
Quoted:
I disagree. In shooting, the two biggest sources of inconsistency between shots are: 1. The environment. 2. User error. The gun will simply perform in accordance within inherent mechanical tolerances and outside forces. The user is a variable, not a constant. Quoted:
Quoted:...
Close, guns are repeatable. Acurracy and precision relate to repeatability. The fire arms system must have a high level of accuacy and precision to make it repeatable. People are the reproducibility component. I disagree. In shooting, the two biggest sources of inconsistency between shots are: 1. The environment. 2. User error. The gun will simply perform in accordance within inherent mechanical tolerances and outside forces. Noun 1. reproducibility - the quality of being reproducible. The user is a variable, not a constant. I do not think you understand repeatability and reproducibility. |
|
While there may be some technical issues we can debate, I will say that I've sat on here convincing myself that I need a noveske upper or short dot, the gone the next day and been soundly out shot by someone who had the same basic m4 aimpoint set up as me. Course that carbine wouldn't be competitive at a national three gun match so at some point there are inherent, or mechanical, accuracy issues whether the user is good enough to exploit whatever maximum inherent accuracy the firearm has is a different issue |
|
I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. You're confusing accuracy with precision. Printers are precise, not accurate. Inherent mechanical precision leads to accuracy in pistols (or any mechanical device), and some pistols are more mechanically precise than others. |
|
Quoted:
I think you've very much simplified and generalized your argument. While I'll agree guns are typically more accurate then the shooter. To say it's all on the shooter seems to be a limited view. I would agree with your statement more if you left ammo off of it. You imply that wolf, FGMM and custom hand loads will preform to the limit of the gun and the shooter is why they print different? You know what, I agree with that statement. The problem is in finding the ammunition that produces desirable results with the rest of your equipment. What I was inferring was the fact that a lot of new shooters buy... I dunno, magic Black Hills 77 SMK boat-tails and wonder why they're not producing better results. |
|
Quoted:
I do not think you understand repeatability and reproducibility. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:...
Close, guns are repeatable. Acurracy and precision relate to repeatability. The fire arms system must have a high level of accuacy and precision to make it repeatable. People are the reproducibility component. I disagree. In shooting, the two biggest sources of inconsistency between shots are: 1. The environment. 2. User error. The gun will simply perform in accordance within inherent mechanical tolerances and outside forces. Noun 1. reproducibility - the quality of being reproducible. The user is a variable, not a constant. I do not think you understand repeatability and reproducibility. This is the Basics sub-forum. Most folks in here aren't going to understand the measurements of results using terminology found in the the scientific method. I'm not insinuating that folks are dumb, but I am trying to simplify the problem: you can't buy success with fancy equipment. |
|
Quoted:
You know what, I agree with that statement. The problem is in finding the ammunition that produces desirable results with the rest of your equipment. What I was inferring was the fact that a lot of new shooters buy... I dunno, magic Black Hills 77 SMK boat-tails and wonder why they're not producing better results. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you've very much simplified and generalized your argument. While I'll agree guns are typically more accurate then the shooter. To say it's all on the shooter seems to be a limited view. I would agree with your statement more if you left ammo off of it. You imply that wolf, FGMM and custom hand loads will preform to the limit of the gun and the shooter is why they print different? You know what, I agree with that statement. The problem is in finding the ammunition that produces desirable results with the rest of your equipment. What I was inferring was the fact that a lot of new shooters buy... I dunno, magic Black Hills 77 SMK boat-tails and wonder why they're not producing better results. Completely agree. No pun intended but their is no "magic bullet" 
The fundamentals need mastering before ammo choices are gonna play a larger factor. |
|
Quoted:
While there may be some technical issues we can debate, I will say that I've sat on here convincing myself that I need a noveske upper or short dot, the gone the next day and been soundly out shot by someone who had the same basic m4 aimpoint set up as me. Course that carbine wouldn't be competitive at a national three gun match so at some point there are inherent, or mechanical, accuracy issues whether the user is good enough to exploit whatever maximum inherent accuracy the firearm has is a different issue What I've found is that if you start with good equipment, you have nothing to blame but user error. I actually like that. The funny part about that is when inexperienced users actually believe the gun will perform for them, rather than assist their performance. I see this a lot when I see shooters ask "what kind of performance can I expect from this very expensive barrel/trigger/bolt?" The truth is: nothing. You can expect nothing except what you and I (and most other folks) refer to inherent accuracy potential. I can describe the qualities of that part and what I can expect in it's function, but not it's results. Take a barrel for instance: I can't tell you how it will perform, because I don't know what someone will do with it. I can relate it's characteristics though; it has grooves of consistent depth, lands with sharp edges and no flat spots or gouges, a consistent and even hand-lapped finish, an even crown free of deformities, and a throat that is properly reamed to accommodate x rifle or pistol round. What I may not honestly state is something along these lines: You can expect 1/4 minute-of-angle with that barrel. I can't say that until I have an objective understanding of the capabilities of that shooter. But you're right, as soon as a shooter has solid fundamentals, they get better and better... then they start to plateau. Then more effort has to be made with equipment and technique to make small gains in performance. What I am trying to impart to newer users is this: if you know you cannot reach the accuracy potential of the equipment, you do not need to spend a lot of money to get into the sport. Buy what you can afford and can use it now. Use it until you know you've reached a level where you need to upgrade your equipment... then do so. 
|
|
I think a good way to put this for new folks is like this.
Put two rifles on the table that are very similar. Call these rifles A) a PTAC build with a milspec trigger and a primary arms micro dot. B) a Noveske light weight with milspec trigger and a aimpoint micro t1 both have the same basic barrel profile and gas system. Now take a set of twins who have never shot before and ask them to produce a set of groups with both rifles without any formal block of instruction on how to take up a proper position or execute any of the fundamentals of marksmanship. Will there be an a drastic or even equivalent difference between the size of the groups and the amount spent on the rifles? How about if we hand the ptac rifle to someone who is proficient with a rifle while the noveske goes to someone who purchased it and put it into the safe? What about a person who is proficient with a rifle but has no knowledge of the rifle or ammunition and is asked to shoot at a longer range with wind? This is why the discussion of precision vs accuracy is valid to me. A pair of shooters might be able to get good precision from either of the rifles but only a shooter who knows his weapon, ammunition and has a firm understanding of the fundamentals of marksmanship is making good use of the rifle. I sure like seeing people talking about it in the basics section though 
|
|
Quoted:
It's the Indian, not the arrow.... Guns have inherent accuracy abilities built into them as well though as does the ammo that goes into them. There are machine rests that take the shooter completely out of the equation that can then measure the ability of the arrow you mentioned. The thing is humans don't shoot like mechanical rests do when in a great position in the prone with a sandbag and we shoot even less like mechanical rests when we start relying on our bones and muscles while simultaneously relying on our breath control and trigger finger. I understand exactly what tweeter is saying in his opening post. When it comes to AR basics which is what this section is dedicated to. The rifle isn't gonna do it for you. There are things you can upgrade on the rifle but if you are on shaky foundation the second something gets hard that rifle won't do you a lick of good. One of the best ways to watch this in person is to go to a steel challenge or a 3 gun event and watch someone who is a first timer. Ability with a rifle shouldn't be based around your ability to play gun games but at the same time these gun games can really show you how little you know or that your preparations and understanding of the rifle have paid off. |
|
Quoted:...
I agree practically exceeding the gun in most cases is a challenge. Holy hell this is true. Even the most basic RRA M16A2 clone is gonna have more potential than most recreational shooters will ever reach. I got my ass handed to me once by an 18-year-old kid with a duct-taped oven mitt for a rest glove. His rifle was about as stock as an AR could get. I was beaten soundly. And my rifle had a fluted barrel and everything. 
I tell you, that kid took me to the river and fucking baptized me. |
|
The basic argument is that new shooters can't buy what only practice can provide.
The example of the super gun and the beater gun is good. I'll provide a touch of personal experience to it. I used to compete in a fast paced multigun event quite a bit. My gear was not what you'd consider high speed... To the point that this was my mag pouch  image by BillyDoubleU, on Flickr
My rifle was a DPMS "M4" with irons and my pistol was a 226 in a serpa You know what? I would win the iron division more often then not. I would rank top 10 to top 5 and even placed 2nd overall (in all honesty should have been 1st place but a knock down did me dirty). Why is this important? Because I was beating all kinds of fancy AR's with fancy optics because I practiced with my gear, a lot. In my office at night doing mag changes, dry firing, drawing the pistol etc. lots and lots of practice. Fundamentals over and over. I got a better rifle and a better mag pouch set up and I got faster and smoother, after I reached the max potential that I could with what I had. I'm kind of a fan of getting good with less then "perfect" gear to make you have to work harder to perfect basics. Then the high speed gear, rifle, pistol, bullets etc will not go to waste. |
| While I agree that the human is easily the biggest factor in accuracy in shooting, I absolutely disagree with the statement that guns aren't "accurate" or some guns aren't more accurate than others. It is entirely possible to remove the human from the equation (locked down rests and laser aiming systems, etc...). And if the human element is removed and the environment is constant (which it can be), you can definitely prove one gun to be more accurate than another. It's a simple measure of distance from point of aim, and since each shot will be different, the consistency portion of accuracy can also be measured from shot to shot. And don't think for one second every gun will be the same under those conditions. Yes, there is more to accuracy than just gun parts, but don't be misled into thinking the gun doesn't matter. I think what you are getting at is that if you know the point of impact and adjust aim accordingly you can hit your target. However, that assumes the gun reacts to the shot the same way every time. And that's where materials and build quality actually do matter. To suggest otherwise is wrong. |
|
Quoted: A lot of new users/shooters are asking these questions: How accurate is this gun going to be? How accurate is this barrel? How accurate are these bullets? Bottom-line-up-front: Guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, bullets aren't accurate. People are. Here's the explanation: A gun is a machine, albeit a very simple one with few moving parts. It interacts with distant objects (targets) with an output device (a bullet). I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. Your gun is more like a pen in this respect. You, the shooter, are the device that determines where the ink goes to make the picture on the target. The next question I usually get after that one is this: then why are some guns or gun parts better than others? That's pretty simple to explain: consistency. You want a gun that has parts that perform in a predictable and consistent manner. Remove variables wherever you find them. You ever write with a pen and the ink "skips"? Yeah, that's a malfunction. You ever run out of ink? Reload. Guns aren't accurate, people are. |
|
Quoted:
some guns are more accurate then others. most guns can be tweeked to improve accuracy. the most accurate gun on the face of the planet is as good as the guy pulling the trigger. FUNDAMENTALS of accurate shooting are often ignored because there is a lot of pain in learning to shoot. few people shoot for groups and the masses shoot rivers or dirt. if they never shoot groups they don't have to be embarrassed for being a shitty shot! Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of new users/shooters are asking these questions: How accurate is this gun going to be? How accurate is this barrel? How accurate are these bullets? Bottom-line-up-front: Guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, bullets aren't accurate. People are. Here's the explanation: A gun is a machine, albeit a very simple one with few moving parts. It interacts with distant objects (targets) with an output device (a bullet). I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. Your gun is more like a pen in this respect. You, the shooter, are the device that determines where the ink goes to make the picture on the target. The next question I usually get after that one is this: then why are some guns or gun parts better than others? That's pretty simple to explain: consistency. You want a gun that has parts that perform in a predictable and consistent manner. Remove variables wherever you find them. You ever write with a pen and the ink "skips"? Yeah, that's a malfunction. You ever run out of ink? Reload. Guns aren't accurate, people are. That makes me wonder how many people even sight in new AR's? When me and my brother first got ours we had just got out of the navy and the AWB hit sunset a year or so ago. We could finally afford an AR so we each got one and tossed them in the closet. Our sighting in was to line up some cans and bottles and see if we could hit them... It wasn't until years later when I started to compete did I actually zero my AR. Mine was pretty close but did require some adjustment. My brothers rifle turned out to have canted sight  ! After a trip back to DPMS years after he bought it did it every get fixed and sighted in...
|
|
Quoted: That makes me wonder how many people even sight in new AR's? When me and my brother first got ours we had just got out of the navy and the AWB hit sunset a year or so ago. We could finally afford an AR so we each got one and tossed them in the closet. Our sighting in was to line up some cans and bottles and see if we could hit them... It wasn't until years later when I started to compete did I actually zero my AR. Mine was pretty close but did require some adjustment. My brothers rifle turned out to have canted sight ! After a trip back to DPMS years after he bought it did it every get fixed and sighted in...Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A lot of new users/shooters are asking these questions: How accurate is this gun going to be? How accurate is this barrel? How accurate are these bullets? Bottom-line-up-front: Guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, bullets aren't accurate. People are. Here's the explanation: A gun is a machine, albeit a very simple one with few moving parts. It interacts with distant objects (targets) with an output device (a bullet). I'm going to use a comparison here: a computer printer is accurate in that it has to repeatably apply ink in a specific pattern to form words or pictures. Your gun is more like a pen in this respect. You, the shooter, are the device that determines where the ink goes to make the picture on the target. The next question I usually get after that one is this: then why are some guns or gun parts better than others? That's pretty simple to explain: consistency. You want a gun that has parts that perform in a predictable and consistent manner. Remove variables wherever you find them. You ever write with a pen and the ink "skips"? Yeah, that's a malfunction. You ever run out of ink? Reload. Guns aren't accurate, people are. That makes me wonder how many people even sight in new AR's? When me and my brother first got ours we had just got out of the navy and the AWB hit sunset a year or so ago. We could finally afford an AR so we each got one and tossed them in the closet. Our sighting in was to line up some cans and bottles and see if we could hit them... It wasn't until years later when I started to compete did I actually zero my AR. Mine was pretty close but did require some adjustment. My brothers rifle turned out to have canted sight ! After a trip back to DPMS years after he bought it did it every get fixed and sighted in...im willing to bet its 50/50 for new ar's being sighted in. even lower for ak's. when I go to the range I shoot anywhere from 100-200 rnds. that's all day!!! I watched guys go through that in 5-10 minutes. i don't get the thrill of shooting dirt.  |
|
Quoted:
...Yes, there is more to accuracy than just gun parts, but don't be misled into thinking the gun doesn't matter... I'm not misled. I get it, really I do. At some point, you're going to need to update or upgrade your equipment. But where do you think a new shooter should start? Relying on equipment or relying on ability? A machine-rest rifle built to the closest tolerances mankind can produce, with a 15-gram trigger, built-to-the-barrel ammunition... with a completely untrained shooter. versus A very skilled shooter with years of experience and an encyclopedic understanding of the total act of shooting... with a stock gun. Here's the whole point of this topic: get new users to start thinking about ability, rather than just show a photo of their new gun and ask for an opinion on it. |
|
Quoted:
I am perfect, it has to be my rifle, at least that's what I tell my wife, lol!!!!!! I don't have time to read this entire thread, maybe tonight I will read it while trying to fall asleep, lol!!!!!  It'll either put you straight to bed, or keep you up all night. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not misled. I get it, really I do. At some point, you're going to need to update or upgrade your equipment. But where do you think a new shooter should start? Relying on equipment or relying on ability? A machine-rest rifle built to the closest tolerances mankind can produce, with a 15-gram trigger, built-to-the-barrel ammunition... with a completely untrained shooter. versus A very skilled shooter with years of experience and an encyclopedic understanding of the total act of shooting... with a stock gun. Here's the whole point of this topic: get new users to start thinking about ability, rather than just show a photo of their new gun and ask for an opinion on it. Quoted:
Quoted:
...Yes, there is more to accuracy than just gun parts, but don't be misled into thinking the gun doesn't matter... I'm not misled. I get it, really I do. At some point, you're going to need to update or upgrade your equipment. But where do you think a new shooter should start? Relying on equipment or relying on ability? A machine-rest rifle built to the closest tolerances mankind can produce, with a 15-gram trigger, built-to-the-barrel ammunition... with a completely untrained shooter. versus A very skilled shooter with years of experience and an encyclopedic understanding of the total act of shooting... with a stock gun. Here's the whole point of this topic: get new users to start thinking about ability, rather than just show a photo of their new gun and ask for an opinion on it. If that's the point of this thread, that's fine. But if it really is, then there are far clearer ways to send that message than you chose. The gist of the original post doesn't read as though it's about emphasizing fundamentals versus equipment for new shooters, but comes off as an attempt to discredit the science behind rifle accuracy. Instead of making incorrect statements like "guns aren't accurate, barrels aren't accurate, ammo isn't accurate", just instruct them how fundamentals are more important to develop to get the most out of the equipment, that does in fact have inherent levels of accuracy. |
|
Local reps from the latest amazing cpu controlled laser designated auto aim thingamajig rifle we're demoing for some potential customers with more money than range time.
They were giggly giddy about hitting 17x21 steel at 500yds first time and every time without ever shooting past 100yds before. My super gun ninja buddy slungup prone in the lane next to them with his M-14 and iron sights....and did the same thing....... The prospective customers all came over to ask him about the rifle he was shooting........the gear reps were not amused....... |
|
Quoted:
Local reps from the latest amazing cpu controlled laser designated auto aim thingamajig rifle we're demoing for some potential customers with more money than range time. They were giggly giddy about hitting 17x21 steel at 500yds first time and every time without ever shooting past 100yds before. My super gun ninja buddy slungup prone in the lane next to them with his M-14 and iron sights....and did the same thing....... The prospective customers all came over to ask him about the rifle he was shooting........the gear reps were not amused....... I love that shit. <boner> |
|
OP, I get what you're saying, but many kinds of shooting just aren't that hard with the right gun. With the right rifle and ammo, you can teach anyone to shoot 4" or better groups at 100 yards off a bench or prone with a bipod in no time. My wife had never fired a rifle in her life, and she put up a 4", five-shot group after about one minute of instruction and five practice shots off a bench with a bipod and unsupported stock.
Now, stand on your hind legs and try to hit a 4" target 100 yards away, and you're talking about something not many people can do consistently no matter what gun you give them. As far as not being able to buy success with fancy equipment, I'm not too sure about that either. I went from shooting 6-8" supported 100 yard groups with a Mini-14 to consistently shooting under 1" by building myself a nice, somewhat expensive rifle. I did not change my skill set to do that. But it all gets back to what kind of shooting you're talking about. Supported rifle shooting just isn't all that hard, and success depends highly on equipment. Standing, off-hand, unsupported shooting at 100 yards and beyond is the other extreme. It's so hard, you rarely see anybody even practice it. I practice off-hand at 200 with my hunting rifle and at 50 yards with my .22. I'm pretty happy with any shot that hits within 3 moa of my point of aim. |
|
Quoted:
OP, I get what you're saying, but many kinds of shooting just aren't that hard with the right gun. With the right rifle and ammo, you can teach anyone to shoot 4" or better groups at 100 yards off a bench or prone with a bipod in no time. My wife had never fired a rifle in her life, and she put up a 4", five-shot group after about one minute of instruction and five practice shots off a bench with a bipod and unsupported stock. Now, stand on your hind legs and try to hit a 4" target 100 yards away, and you're talking about something not many people can do consistently no matter what gun you give them. As far as not being able to buy success with fancy equipment, I'm not too sure about that either. I went from shooting 6-8" supported 100 yard groups with a Mini-14 to consistently shooting under 1" by building myself a nice, somewhat expensive rifle. I did not change my skill set to do that. But it all gets back to what kind of shooting you're talking about. Supported rifle shooting just isn't all that hard, and success depends highly on equipment. Standing, off-hand, unsupported shooting at 100 yards and beyond is the other extreme. It's so hard, you rarely see anybody even practice it. I practice off-hand at 200 with my hunting rifle and at 50 yards with my .22. I'm pretty happy with any shot that hits within 3 moa of my point of aim. I saw Todd Hodnett walking new shooters into a plate at 1000 yards with a spotting scope. I know what you're talkin' about. I started this discussion to get folks to think about ability versus equipment. Like Nick said previously, there are many mechanical shooting systems that remove as much of the user as possible from interacting (and adding variance) to the act of shooting. Bench "rail" guns are just this sort of animal, but they're too big to be of practical use to an average shooter. Any person can walk up to one, and activate a remote trigger for one of these and hit at some amazing distances. There is little value found in that act for most people, except to maybe say "I shot this group or target at this distance successfully" For bench shooters, who are typically looking for amazing groups at amazing distances, this is enough. Most of the skill in this version of shooting lies in the manufacture of the device itself and taking into account the environmental variables (wind, humidity, temperature, etc.). With all of this taken into account: Where do you find value in the type of shooting that you do? P.S. - I am currently watching the Buffalo Bill "tuck scene" in Silence of the Lambs. It has a catchy tune, but the scene ruins it. |
This is a good discussion. Thinking about it got me to pull my wife's target. I like to check my memory with pictures. Shooters' memories are like like fishermen's.
That's ten shots at 100 yards off a benched bipod. I think it was shot as a single group. Max spread looks just under 5". Nine shots look to be within 3". Five are inside 1 3/4". This was the first time she had shot a rifle. She is a novice pistol shooter. My instruction consisted of explaining how to get proper eye relief on a scope, support the stock with your off hand, and what a two-stage trigger feels like. My recollection is she shot about five shots before this group. This says a lot to me about equipment versus ability. |
|
Quoted: This is a good discussion. Thinking about it got me to pull my wife's target. I like to check my memory with pictures. Shooters' memories are like like fishermen's. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/jebbranham/chelle%20target_zps4ewburxj.jpg That's ten shots at 100 yards off a benched bipod. I think it was shot as a single group. Max spread looks just under 5". Nine shots look to be within 3". Five are inside 1 3/4". This was the first time she had shot a rifle. She is a novice pistol shooter. My instruction consisted of explaining how to get proper eye relief on a scope, support the stock with your off hand, and what a two-stage trigger feels like. My recollection is she shot about five shots before this group. This says a lot to me about equipment versus ability. |
|
Quoted:
needs work on breath control Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a good discussion. Thinking about it got me to pull my wife's target. I like to check my memory with pictures. Shooters' memories are like like fishermen's. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/jebbranham/chelle%20target_zps4ewburxj.jpg That's ten shots at 100 yards off a benched bipod. I think it was shot as a single group. Max spread looks just under 5". Nine shots look to be within 3". Five are inside 1 3/4". This was the first time she had shot a rifle. She is a novice pistol shooter. My instruction consisted of explaining how to get proper eye relief on a scope, support the stock with your off hand, and what a two-stage trigger feels like. My recollection is she shot about five shots before this group. This says a lot to me about equipment versus ability. No kidding. If she works on her breathing that vertical stringing will clean right up. Good on you for getting her behind a gun! |
|
Quoted:
needs work on breath control Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a good discussion. Thinking about it got me to pull my wife's target. I like to check my memory with pictures. Shooters' memories are like like fishermen's. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/jebbranham/chelle%20target_zps4ewburxj.jpg That's ten shots at 100 yards off a benched bipod. I think it was shot as a single group. Max spread looks just under 5". Nine shots look to be within 3". Five are inside 1 3/4". This was the first time she had shot a rifle. She is a novice pistol shooter. My instruction consisted of explaining how to get proper eye relief on a scope, support the stock with your off hand, and what a two-stage trigger feels like. My recollection is she shot about five shots before this group. This says a lot to me about equipment versus ability. I found it funny that when I saw the picture I said the same thing to myself. That is the NCO jumping out of me I guess. A small amount of work on her controlling the point of releasing and working hard on firing from the natural respiratory pause will likely result in even tighter groups yet. She should be proud and happy with her first round successes though and hopefully you can get her out and let her know that random people on the internet agree that a small change in breathing will make a big change in precision. 
|
|
Quoted:
I found it funny that when I saw the picture I said the same thing to myself. That is the NCO jumping out of me I guess... Quoted:
Quoted:...needs work on breath control
I found it funny that when I saw the picture I said the same thing to myself. That is the NCO jumping out of me I guess... No, that's the teacher in you evaluating results. |
|
Quoted: I found it funny that when I saw the picture I said the same thing to myself. That is the NCO jumping out of me I guess. A small amount of work on her controlling the point of releasing and working hard on firing from the natural respiratory pause will likely result in even tighter groups yet. She should be proud and happy with her first round successes though and hopefully you can get her out and let her know that random people on the internet agree that a small change in breathing will make a big change in precision. http://i62.tinypic.com/rhlq3o.png Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a good discussion. Thinking about it got me to pull my wife's target. I like to check my memory with pictures. Shooters' memories are like like fishermen's. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/jebbranham/chelle%20target_zps4ewburxj.jpg That's ten shots at 100 yards off a benched bipod. I think it was shot as a single group. Max spread looks just under 5". Nine shots look to be within 3". Five are inside 1 3/4". This was the first time she had shot a rifle. She is a novice pistol shooter. My instruction consisted of explaining how to get proper eye relief on a scope, support the stock with your off hand, and what a two-stage trigger feels like. My recollection is she shot about five shots before this group. This says a lot to me about equipment versus ability. I found it funny that when I saw the picture I said the same thing to myself. That is the NCO jumping out of me I guess. A small amount of work on her controlling the point of releasing and working hard on firing from the natural respiratory pause will likely result in even tighter groups yet. She should be proud and happy with her first round successes though and hopefully you can get her out and let her know that random people on the internet agree that a small change in breathing will make a big change in precision. http://i62.tinypic.com/rhlq3o.png |
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter