6X5 SHOOTERS I WOULD LIKE YOUR INPUT PLEASE...

[rick137]

I see y’all’s point on how easy it is to get lost in the weeds and how difficult it can be being as accurate as humanly possible when measuring rimfire rounds on paper and then calculating MOA. I am right there with ya!

However I think the point of this discussion isn't how to squeeze the very last drop of accuracy out of our measurements, but rather how can we all be a little more on the same page when submitting measurements. Keep in mind the MAIN point of the 6X5 thread isn’t a competition, it is to get more people interested in precision rimfire. My goal is to grow the sport, share knowledge, provide a welcoming source of information and inspiration for new shooters. The last thing I want to see is making this over complicated and thus turning people away from it.

So let’s try to keep the final decision fairly simple, easy to do with common measuring devices that most shooters have or at least should have.

@jbell:

Agree with everything you say. But a seriatum, i.e. ordered list, has implicit competition. Why not do as the military does, and have categories such as expert, sharpshooter, marksman. Then you are striving for the next highest designation, to be in a more select group. And with idea you can use your achievement in your SH handle, such as Expert 50 yd. The focus is on improving your marksmanship which I think is one of the prime goals of the 6 x 5. The other benefit is if the categories are say 0.200 MOA wide then most of the issues on accuracy of ETE groups becomes irrelevant.

This approach will not satisfy the anal obsessives but let them worry about whether their weapon system has an accuracy of 0.215 MOA or 0.220 MOA. And lust for a weapon system with 0.210 MOA.

 

[BillOH]

Here's the same group I posted upthread, except measured with Ballistic-X. It says .51". Pretty close??

A caliper is only 20 or 30 bucks. My vote is measure with a caliper outside edge to outside edge of the black grease smear, leaving a minuscule amount of white line to make sure that you are measuring as close as possible, and subtract .222.

I find the Ballistic-X app very tedious to use. Every time I try to mark a spot, it moves when I lift my finger. It took me 3 tries to get a picture that was right side up, because I was trying so hard to get a parallel picture.

 

[jbell]

@jbell:

Agree with everything you say. But a seriatum, i.e. ordered list, has implicit competition. Why not do as the military does, and have categories such as expert, sharpshooter, marksman. Then you are striving for the next highest designation, to be in a more select group. And with idea you can use your achievement in your SH handle, such as Expert 50 yd. The focus is on improving your marksmanship which I think is one of the prime goals of the 6 x 5. The other benefit is if the categories are say 0.200 MOA wide then most of the issues on accuracy of ETE groups becomes irrelevant.

This approach will not satisfy the anal obsessives but let them worry about whether their weapon system has an accuracy of 0.215 MOA or 0.220 MOA. And lust for a weapon system with 0.210 MOA.

The short answer is never really thought about it...
But I suppose after thinking about that system for a bit it leaves little room for someone to improve on their personal best. Meaning if you attain the highest level with the minimal requirements for that level your still at the highest level. When using specific group size we are able to keep raising the bar indefinitely. I think...

 

[KindOldMan]

Quarter Horse: "There are so many variables that effect the diameter of the bullet hole that there will not be any true consistency in measurement from one target to another and from one individual to another. "

^^^^^ This is the crux of the matter as I see it. At the risk of getting flamed to death, may I suggest an alternative solution that will, IMHO, address the 2 points above.

We know that the diameter of the holes can be from .17x ~ .22x in diameter depending on a number of variables - paper thickness, dry or wet, backer material, etc. But what isn't a variable, regardless of the diameter, is that every bullet hole has a "center". So if we can accurately (within a pixel or less) determine the center of the 2 farthest holes in a group and apply a fixed diameter to them (say .222 for example), then we can consistently measure any group, regardless of the actual hole diameter on the target. After applying said "fixed diameter" then an ETE measurement can be made at the furthest distance and then subtract the standard .222 that has been used since 2013 (in an effort to standardized with groups shot in the last 7 years).

We have a number of individuals here on the forum that have the technical skill and, more importantly, the technical software/hardware to take a submitted image of a 5 shot group and determine the above.

By having one person that performs the "measurement" using the exact same process, you eliminate the variable of different individuals using different methods/equipment to measure the group. By using the above mentioned process, you eliminate the bullet hole size variable.

All that needs to be done is find someone that has the technical skills and equipment, is willing to volunteer their time and effort, and is trusted, to be designated as the "official 6x5 scorer".

Members would submit an image clear as possible, least distortion, highest resolution, etc. of each 5 shot group as the forum will allow - preferably not marked up by ballistic software - with a size reference point (1" square/circle, .5" dot, etc.). The better the source image, the more accurate the measurement. Six of those and then one of the whole 6x5 target to prove they all came from the same one.

Other details can be worked out - Lossy vs. Lossless, resolution, format, etc. - all above my paygrade.

Just my .02

P.S. This method would even work on "ragged holes" where only partial radiuses exist of the 2 furthest holes. The software/hardware would be able to take the partial radius and interpolate the rest of the missing radius to create a hole. Once that is done, then an exact "center" can be determined and then you would follow the normal procedure.

 

[rick137]

for
The short answer is never really thought about it...
But I suppose after thinking about that system for a bit it leaves little room for someone to improve on their personal best. Meaning if you attain the highest level with the minimal requirements for that level your still at the highest level. When using specific group size we are able to keep raising the bar indefinitely. I think...

@jbell:

You know much better than I but 0.000 MOA to 0.200 MOA at 50 yd for Expert is a significant accomplishment. If that is not sufficient then, as you state, always raise the bar, say to 0.000 MOA to 0.100 MOA for Expert Plus. Since you are the CO of this thread, you have the final word.

Rick

 

[jbell]

@jbell:

You know much better than I but 0.000 MOA to 0.200 MOA at 50 yd for Expert is a significant accomplishment. If that is not sufficient then, as you state, always raise the bar, say to 0.000 MOA to 0.100 MOA for Expert Plus. Since you are the CO of this thread, you have the final word.

Rick

If the majority wants to use the levels or tiers style of record keeping then I'm all for it. I personally had rather not (even though it makes more work for me), but that's just me. It doesn't mean that we have to do what I want to do. My opinion may only be based on what I'm used to doing for so long.

 

[Near miss]

Did somebody just say I might be eligible for internet marksman points? Say no more!

 

[Jadams]

You forgot about Master and High Master! Been a master class HP shooter since 2002.

 

[jbell]

Does masterbater count? I am a better fisherman than shooter.

I’m sorry I couldn’t help myself...

But in all seriousness the class idea is not a bad one at all. I just have never given it any thought. Good thing there are smarter people than me around here.

 

[BillOH]

I tried Ballistic-X again and only used the 2 furthest hits. It was easier.

 

[walt willis]

We used a magnifying plug and or an overlay test in the army. If it touches the line it counts as in.
One target was sent to the FBI lab and I have no idea what they used?

 

[melglass]

It’s all for fun. Post a target and try to beat yourself the next time out. That’s what I do. The numbers of the people above you just show that it is possible for you to do better.

 

[jbell]

It’s all for fun. Post a target and try to beat yourself the next time out. That’s what I do. The numbers of the people above you just show that it is possible for you to do better.

Excellent way of putting what I have always felt.

 

[jbell]

We used a magnifying plug and or an overlay test in the army. If it touches the line it counts as in.
One target was sent to the FBI lab and I have no idea what they used?

I use the same plug for shooting score, but I just dont see how it helps when measuring group size. It is an irrelevant tool for this.

 

[orkan]

Uncut unedited video submissions with range verification with accompanying high resolution target pictures with scoring handled by an uninterested (non-participating) 3rd party that remains the same person or group of people throughout the submission period.

I will never submit another target outside of that environment.

 

[jbell]

Uncut unedited video submissions with range verification with accompanying high resolution target pictures with scoring handled by an uninterested (non-participating) 3rd party that remains the same person or group of people throughout the submission period.

I will never submit another target outside of that environment.

Your effort is definitely a cut above and certainly is the benchmark for transparency, my hats off to you. I know why you are doing it and I'm my opinion it's a damn shame you feel like you need to. But I'll be damned if I'm going to that much effort to make some whiney bitch in his mom's basement happy...

 

[Rimfireshooter99]

Excellent way of putting what I have always felt.

A great perspective in the posting my melglass;

It’s all for fun. Post a target and try to beat yourself the next time out. That’s what I do. The numbers of the people above you just show that it is possible for you to do better.

 

[rick137]

A great perspective in the posting my melglass;

It’s all for fun. Post a target and try to beat yourself the next time out. That’s what I do. The numbers of the people above you just show that it is possible for you to do better.

@Rimfireshooter99:

Glad to have you back. Who gives a damn about "people above you". Perfection is well defined. For myself it is trying to beat my average. If I do life is good. If I do not I trying to determine why I did not.

Rick

 

[Rimfireshooter99]

@Rimfireshooter99:

Glad to have you back. Who gives a damn about "people above you". Perfection is well defined. For myself it is trying to beat my average. If I do life is good. If I do not I trying to determine why I did not.

Rick

Thanks Rick. Glad to be back. As we all know, we can't believe everything we see, read or hear on the internet, so melglass has the right approach. Use yourself as the benchmark and see if you can improve from month to month. Read about a few new techniques, apply them and see if you can show improvement. There are so many little things that go into shooting small holes. Sharing the info is not to prove a point to others, but to help others. Good to be back after mom took exception to a post. She's a little grumpy from time to time, as I found out.

 

[melglass]

Uncut unedited video submissions with range verification with accompanying high resolution target pictures with scoring handled by an uninterested (non-participating) 3rd party that remains the same person or group of people throughout the submission period.

I will never submit another target outside of that environment.

Don‘t let all the BS get to you. I enjoy your post and like seeing your targets. Keep putting up the 6x5s. Us slobs like to see what these guns will do. Would love to see some 100 yard targets from your setup.

 

[jbell]

Don‘t let all the BS get to you. I enjoy your post and like seeing your targets. Keep putting up the 6x5s. Us slobs like to see what these guns will do. Would love to see some 100 yard targets from your setup.

100%

 

[JG26_Irish]

When using a caliper I always measure from the outer edge of the black ring of the two holes that are furthest apart and subtract the diameter of one bullet. Trying to eye up the center of a hole and keeping the caliper there for a measurement leaves room for more error. I think measuring from the outer edge of the black rings and subtracting .222 is a good standard. Just my 2 cents.

This is the way I do it as well. I was never able to accurately measure to the actual center of the holes but can easily measure to the outside edges of the group. It may not be perfect but if we all are consistent it still gives us a relative benchmark of rifle/ammo/shooter performance. The only person I am competing with is myself. As for the software method? It gives the illusion of precision but is still limited to the accuracy of the user. I cannot see it as being any better than the old method and not all have it anyway. I am OK with 0.222 since that was what most of us have used for years.

Irish

 

[simpletoms]

Don't know that I have a strong opinion on the methodology. But if the desire is keeping people consistent and honest, make it a two measurement system. That is, measure each group OTO and subtract .221, then do the approximate CTC,or your favorite app. I think some would find it interesting the difference between their numbers.