“Accurate” - What is it?

There are endless posts talking about how accurate a rifle is, followed by a photo showing a nice group, which is nowhere near the bullseye/intended point of aim.

For hunting and tactical applications, small groups are helpful, but the ability to RELIABLY and CONSISTENTLY put the cold bore shot on a 1 MOA size target is my measure of accuracy. The bullet going where intended is the metric.

1/4 MOA groups that are nowhere near the bullseye are not “accurate” and do not equal an accurate rifle.

“Accuracy” requires four major components to work together:

1. rifle;

2. ammo;

3. scope including rings and base; and,

4. the shooter, which is always the most fallible component.

Other than a benchrest match, which I do not shoot, I always prefer a setup that can reliably hit 1 MOA targets with the cold bore shot over a 1/4 group shooting setup than is prone to shifting and wandering around or hard for the shooter to reliably put on the target for whatever reason.

Just some random musings on a Friday afternoon from reading some other posts.

I always thought people intentionally clicked the turrets a few off the bull when grouping shots just so they don't shoot out their point of aim.

Yes!!! When talking about accuracy, I always ask a customer what kind of accuracy are you looking for? Because the one looking for 1/2 moa at 100 is a different kind of shooter looking for 1/2 moa at 1000!

(Deep thoughts, by Jeff!)

I almost wrote that^^ verbatim a few days ago, after I answered a PM from a member. He told me the rifles he already has, and the scopes he has. I explained, he could use one of his rifles, and get a tuned handload for it, and a better optic for shooting tighter, as well as farther. It is a system with four parts working together.

Think of a square table, with four perpendicular legs. Cut off one of the legs, and the table falls over.

In his case, he already has rifles. I recommended he look at scope/ mount (leg two), ammo (leg three), and then I will help him with the shooting part (leg four).

And by the way, cold bore on 1 MOA is a fairly tall order, for anyone. I go for it, on my range, beyond 400 yards, quite often. I don't always hit it.

!

Depends on the usage. Like the OP stated, knowing where the cold bore shot is going to hit is far more important than a nice tight group for some people. Imagine being a police sniper, having to make that shot on a hostage taker and only having half his face available and just to the right is the hostages face. At 100 yards if you are 100% certain where your cold bore shot is going to hit, would you take that shot knowing the consequences?

i've always wondered how those tight groups are being shot from a bench, is the rifle rested in a cradle? i see a lot of them at the range. i'll use an arm rest but the my rifle forearm is still rested in my palm, just curious

Yep then zero after load development

i have a savage in 308 that only likes cold bore shots, the first 3 shots have been .75 to 1.25 at 100yrds, the next 3 are 3-4 inches off and by the 6th shot, the barrel is smoking hot and when i get 7 to 9 shots, the barrel is actually smoking, normal? none of my other rifles do this

Jeffbird, what you describe seeing is actually not a display of ACCURACY (though that is how people frequently describe it) but rather it is a display of PRECISION. These are two very different terms. First lets define the term PRECISION since that is what we often see and unfortunately is used inappropriately when, as you have described, someone shares a photo of a target with the bullseye being their aim point but their group is away from it but very tight.

PRECISION is defined as how close measurements are to each other. Here is a picture of a very precise group. Notice how small the measurements are from each bullet whole. However, they are not close to the intended aimpoint which is the bullseye.



ACCURACY is defined as how close measurements are to the true value. Take for instance this photo. The bullet wholes are all roughly close to the intended aiming point, the center of the target. This would be defined as accuracy.



An ACCURATE and PRECISE target would look like the following, where the PRECISION shows a tight group and the ACCURACY is shown by it being on top of the aim point, ie. the center of the bullseye. This is what, in my opinion one hopes to achieve and would accurately describe a target where one has center punched a tight group.



This discussion can go even further when you talk about REPEATABILITY (results from the same shooter and same rifle) and REPRODUCIBILITY (results from a different shooter and the same rifle).

Lots of good articles and websites describing all of this, which is where I pulled it from.

Accuracy is hitting what you aim at on game. It doesn’t matter if you’re neck shooting a deer over a feeder or shooting a coyote running across the pasture. If you hit what you’re aiming at your accurate. If you’re rifle shoots small groups where you point it when sighting in you’ll be a lot more accurate on animals.

I see an engineer here that is familiar with GR&R studies. Spot on!

Don't bring that up. I've shot with lots of PD Snipers this year.

There is only one cold bore shot.

Your next three are due to barrel heating. Thicker the barrel, the more shots it takes to develop fliers.

He's a medical doctor, Tim.

I couldn’t hold water to an engineers mind. True intelligence in that field. I just try to learn as much as I can about hunting/shooting and have seen this presented in several long range classes I have taken. You guys are way smarter than me when it comes to shooting, ballistics, etc. I just try to pick up things here and there and share what I can.

Why? After all, that is the most important shot one could take

In that case, I got this rash and it burns when I pee...should I be concerned?

Seriously, if a gun will shoot a tiny group...it is just a few clicks away from being on the dot and putting it there consistently takes practice and mechanics. At that point it ain't the gun...it's JG's 4th leg on the table.

If I'm at the gun range I'm typically tuning a rifle or shooting a match. One I care where they group and the other I could care less.

I would venture that most peeps posting pics on this forum are probably doing so because they have a new rifle and/or are working up a new load, and that they have not zeroed for that load yet.

Can't remember the last post I read along the lines of:



Maybe I just skip those.

-ww

Text me, and I'll explain.

X3

No accuracy here

I think 1 MOA, cold bore, is a bit much to ask out of a hunting rifle (where cold bore shots count). How many hunters actually check humidity and temperature changes, and adjust, before taking a shot? I would guess very few.

Precision does not equal accuracy.

Accuracy = hitting where you aim (the bullseye).
Precision = hitting the same spot over and over (tight groups).

Precision looks pretty, accuracy kills.

Is it not just a simple task of adjusting the scope to turn precision into accuracy (for target purposes)?

I just shoot 3 to check precision and if I like it adjust scope to move group to my desired POI. I always just assumed the guys showing off their groups on a target obviously have the sense to move them to where they want them - never thought much about it honestly.

I do marvel at how guys can keep a rifle steady enough to know you have a 1/4” rifle vs. a 1/2” rifle. I sure can’t. I know some can/do (targets above prove it), but kinda have the feeling if the average guy shoots a 1/4” group it’s most likely something that is not repeatable and, thus, not really proof of a true 1/4” rifle.

And a smart Doc at that. What he presented is a Gauge Repeatability and Reproducabilty study also called a Systems Measurement Analysis. We do this in the engineering and manufacturing industry to make sure our measuring and test equipment are consistent from lab to lab. Good stuff!

Not sure how this applies to the discussion but you guys are free to critique it. I'm planning on shooting a doe this evening so I took my 223 bolt gun to work today. After I was done with work I shot a 10 shot group at 100 yards to make sure I'm good to go. I usually just shoot 5 but I had read this post so I loaded 5 and emptied out. Loaded 5 more and emptied out again. So group is from cold bore to pretty warm. Anticipated shot is ear hole under the feeder which is at 208 yards. Scope is a 3-10 Swaro.

Looks perfect.

Accurate- the rifle bullets go where the shooter tells them to go, every time.

Precise- the accuracy of the rifle, ammo, optic, and shooter can be placed inside a very small area, for a given distance.

The definitions are straightforward and not rocket science.

I don’t understand the idea that there’s any practical difference between the two other than adjusting the scope. I mean, if a guy can shoot 1/4” groups it seems to be he has every base covered for both precision and accuracy except the final scope adjustments.

I agree with Jeff’s OP, but I guess I am still scratching my head on the sentence about 1/4” groups not equaling an accurate rifle. Seems like as soon as the scope is adjusted it will be. Maybe I’m missing something.......

The shooter is always the big wild card where accuracy is concerned. Especially in a hunting situation. But, we’re not talking about the car anymore when we start talking about the driver.....

Anyway, good discussion.

Accurate, what it is?
It’s when I go to a PRS match, take my gun to confirm zero and put my first 3 shots out of a clean cold barrel in one ragged hole, in the center of the target….like today….Zero confirmed….a formality….but I like doing it anyways.

Didn’t take a pic of my zero confirmed but here’s a pic of my load development at 100Y

That rifle isn’t terribly picky, is it?

IMO, "accurate" is a term that should be applied separately to the firearm, ammo, and person using them. A given firearm and ammo combination provides a given level of accuracy by themselves. The accuracy of the shooter is never any better than the accuracy of these two. And in most if not all cases, the accuracy of the firearm and ammo combination goes down with the shooter since no one is a perfect shot.

What I find interesting is how people will post photos of tight groups created on the bench with the aid of sandbags or other items with an unspoken belief that the accuracy produced will be easily re-produced without them. They are like the guy who believes that topping his rifle with a $2500 scope will automatically make him a certified sniper. Nothing is further from the truth.

This has to be approached in steps. The bench, or prone is finding what the rifle/optic/ammo/shooter is capable of. Once that is learned, THEN go to supported, and un-supported field shooting positions.

My standard procedure, with customers, is prone (or bench if they prefer) 100 yard paper, checking zero. Then head down the range, dialing elevation, holding wind, to 800 yards. Then start over at 200, making pure holds with the reticle. After those steps have been made, then we will move to field shooting positions, which is a whole other skill set, and list of techniques.

That’s certainly an example of precision and accuracy.

Apologies for the delay in responding, was out doing search and rescue training of all things. Very interesting, especially in the pouring rain on Saturday and Saturday night.


Online dictionary definition of accuracy:

the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.




????

On most targets, the 10 ring is 1 MOA and the X ring is 1/2 MOA. That target is well within my definition/goal for accuracy for a hunting rifle, quoted again below, of the ability to reliably and consistently hit a 1 MOA target. So, it is an incredibly small group size, but also showing the point I was trying to make of the bullet going where intended.







We're on the same page.






Can be, and should be, but in reality, not necessarily. Even making a simple correction for "sighting in" at 100 yards can involve more than just turning a knob. A high quality scope like a Nightforce or Schmidt and Bender will make an accurate correction quickly and easily and hold it, some other very popular brands, not so much. But, there is no substitute for shooting and putting the bullet on the bullseye, especially for those talking about head and neck shots. We owe it the animal to be able to make a quick clean kill, so they do not suffer.

Sometimes, the scope is not the problem, but the barrel may do some odds things with a cold bore shot compared to shooting a group.

Where the cold bore shot goes is what counts for hunting, not the third shot, tenth shot, or a group. There are some rifle combos than can make very reliable cold bore shots, and not necessarily shoot a good group. One rifle I owned in the past, a custom, would very reliably put the cold bore shot in the same place, day after day. Shots 2 - 5, would hit 0.75 MOA at 2 o'clock from that cold bore shot. Shots 2 - 5 were well under 1/2 MOA, but add in the cold bore shot and the group was more than double that size. So, I zeroed the rifle for where that cold bore shot was going since it was the most important for hunting.

Is that 0.75 MOA difference in a cold bore shot enough to matter for hunting? Even at 100 yards, for a head or CNS shot, yes, that would be a difference of significance, especially considering that hunting conditions can make the cold bore shot even less precise due to the hunter not having as steady of a rest, fatigue, adrenaline, and just being anxious.

There is no substitute for really shooting and practicing hitting the bullseye, paying very close attention to the cold bore shot, and also checking at intervals out to the maximum distance that will be shot. Shooting at the various distances and adjusting until the bullet hits the intended point of aim/bullseye produces "true statements." A scope may not track accurately and ammo may not behave as anticipated. So, checking for "true statements" is needed to know what is really going to put the bullet where intended.

Kevin1,

very nice looking target. Out of curiosity, why are you shooting a ladder at 100 yards, rather than a bit farther out? But, really nice looking target. Well done!




As usual, we are in agreement. Absolutely agree. One of my favorite practice targets has 20 1" dots. I hang it up at 100 yards, then shoot two shots, one shot per dot, then stand up and back away from the rifle. Repeat ten times. If that becomes too easy, try it with the 1/2" dots, which is a really hard challenge.

Here is a good link for practice targets that print out for free on a computer printer.

http://mytargets.com/tntarget22circlesx20.gif

Jeff,

This thread was on my mind yesterday evening. The wind was getting going, and rain was beginning to fall. I was about to leave, and decided to fire one. I checked my notes for the 7 Rem Mag, and Nightforce. Dialed up for 800, held the wind, and let one go. I did not try for the 1 MOA steel at that distance, but my impact hit .1 Mil right (into the wind) of center. It would have hit the 1 MOA steel, but the wind made me have my doubts. Zero mirage to read it was a gut feeling on my hold.

I still felt pretty good about it, and dcided that was a good enough shot to cose the day. Put the rifle in the truck and lleft.

"Where the cold bore shot goes is what counts for hunting, not the third shot, tenth shot, or a group. There are some rifle combos than can make very reliable cold bore shots, and not necessarily shoot a good group. One rifle I owned in the past, a custom, would very reliably put the cold bore shot in the same place, day after day. Shots 2 - 5, would hit 0.75 MOA at 2 o'clock from that cold bore shot. Shots 2 - 5 were well under 1/2 MOA, but add in the cold bore shot and the group was more than double that size. So, I zeroed the rifle for where that cold bore shot was going since it was the most important for hunting."

A very good and useful point.

Sneaky,
Yeh the rifle isn't picky at all. I can't get it to shoot over 1 moa no matter what load I try. Might need Buzz to help me out on this one


Jeff,
I'm not doing a latter. I'm using this other method (http://www.texasprc.club/preidloaddev/). I like it because it's pretty simple and I'm able to maintain accuracy at much longer ranges.

I've used Paul's method and another method involving shooting only one charge of each increment over the chrono and looking for the node then load a few to check accuracy in each node (typically you'll see two of them). The chrono method requires a reliable chono like a magneto or labradar but it Typically uses less rounds.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and shot this target, when I make a shot like this, I don't even consider taking another shot! That black dot is 13/16" (100yds.)

^^And THAT is how it is done!

+1 Outstanding!

Good thread and discussion. I'm also a big fan of cold bore sight in for hunting rifles. On my target rifles I go hot bore because that's how they are for a majority of shots.

This was my cold bore sight in on my current hunting setup, a CTR in .260 Rem. First group just below the bull was fired in succession, I then adjusted my scope, cooled the barrel back down to air temp, then fired the next 3 shots with a 30 minute cool down between each shot. It meets my definition of acceptable accuracy and precision for a factory hunting rifle and a hunting scope.

Is that a group or you shot one round?

No kidding. That’s accurate, all right.

How's this for a 15 shot group at 649yds? 15rds as fast as mags could be swapped with a 223ai.

Come on dee. You couldn’t squeeze in another yard? That’s hell on my OCD.

Lol. Mine too but I was already down and too lazy to get up and move back.

Very fine!

I dropped off the parts an hour ago, for my very own .223 A.I. Really looking forward to it!

I've only shot this one a few times. I took it to a club match and it is a blast after overcoming a learning curve. Shot this group the next day with the remaining ammo cold bore and all.

What I like with Paul’s method is that I don’t have to play with the seating depth. It might be a little simplistic and not apply to BR shooting but I think it’s good enough for for the type of shooting I do.

Learning curve?
More of a wind hold?
I know it's significantly more than your 7mm.

Yea basically. I'm used to only needing a tenth or so for increase in wind speeds where this one required more.

Not having to adjust seating depth is not always a consistent. Bullet design plays a large part in this factor.