Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guys I'm a br shooter and this is not how you measure groups. You measure the farthest points in the group and subtract .224 cause that's the size of a scoring plug not the size of a bullet hole lmao. Dont know who taught yall how to do this but it is not correct.Welcome dieselboy_01, I have you on the results.
tsgarp I have your average updated.
Guys I'm a br shooter and this is not how you measure groups. You measure the farthest points in the group and subtract .224 cause that's the size of a scoring plug not the size of a bullet hole lmao. Dont know who taught yall how to do this but it is not correct.
@jbell:I really don't mean to be argumentative but if the bullet is making a hole in the paper smaller than what your subtracting to get your CTC size after measuring outer edge to outer edge then your CTC group size will be smaller than it really is.
I haven't seen any target material that a 22lr will make a 0.224" diameter hole in. Most all I have measured will be right around 0.220" (some as small as 0.218") from the edge of the black ring to the furthest most opposite edge of the black ring. That is why I measure and advocate measuring so there is the slightest amount of target showing between the blade of your caliper and the black ring about 0.001"-0.002" that way you can know your consistent from group to group and then subtract 0.222". If you try and measure right to the edge of the black ring you will be more likely to measure small by covering some of the ring with the blade of your caliper.
I can see subtracting 0.224" if your opening the hole up with a scoring plug but if your shooting for groups why would you ever stick a scoring plug in the hole? I use them when shooting for score in both air rifle and rimfire if I'm not shooting on an electric scoring range.
I'm not a benchrest shooter nor do I have any interest in it, so I don't have any experience in measuring for the discipline. So I may be completely incorrect but all the rimfire benchrest matches I have seen are shooting for score, not groups hence the scoring plug.
It seems to me like your comparing apples to oranges...
My problem with all this is, the holes vary, depending on type of paper/target. I have some holes measuring .17, some .220, some .117.. While I understand the logic @jbell is stating, it doesnt allow for comparable groups or a standard to follow. This is why I personally believe the method everyone I know follows is just subtracting bullet diameter.
If we know every single person here measured outside to outside and subtracted .223, we know the results are 100% comparable... But if one guys subtracts, .223, one guy subtracts .224, one guy subtracts .117, one guy subtracts .171, one guy subtracts .210, etc...... None of this is comparable if you ask me. There is no standard. I think thats why subtracting bullet diameter has always been the method, because its a standard to which everyone can follow and accurately compare results. Not because its the scientific way to find an exact measurement. I personally have never heard of this measure your holes 5x and find averages and then use that to subtract and then do the same on the next group and so on and so forth.
But that's just my $0.02
People are already pulling calipers out, why not just measure the hole the round is leaving in that paper/target and using it for the subtraction?
If everyone always subtracted the same thing, but they all shot on different paper types, then it's not really comparable?
I subtract bullet hole dia I measure on the target because if I subtracted 224 then use that measurement center to center on my calipers I can clearly see it is not the true center to center
And I am not going to lie to myself that I shot a better group then I did
So the bullet that passed through the target doesnt measure what it measures??? Is that what youre saying? Regardless how the target/paper/etc reacts, that bullet actually measures what it measures. It doesnt magically shrink to .17, or .2 or .220 or .21 in the air on the way to the target... Your lying to yourself one way or the other..Either on the CTC or the bullet diameter....
And to be clear, I dont care how you guys measure. Its all in good fun. Im just stoking a conversation and thought process on this topic. And trying to highlight why guys have always measured bullet diameter. If you feel your lying to yourself doing that, for whatever reason, then measure it how you want. Its for your fun and satisfaction, there are no prizes, awards, trophy's, etc being given here.
Because the holes aren't consistent. That's why. I did this in another thread...i can measure 3 holes on the same target and get 3 completely different measurements...one where there is solid wood behind that hole, one where there is partial cardboard, one where there is nothing, a shot out hole in the wood behind the paper.....Do you take the largest hole or the smallest hole no? no consistency. That's why all these years on the Hide, everyone has been subtracting bullet diameter....
I believe, this is why, the standard I always understood was using .220”.
That is what was factored as well back in the early days of 22 BR group shooting, mostly NBRSA which seems to have died a quiet death.
Where .224” came in was likely the early plugs which are now smaller in sanctioning bodies.
I wouldnt disagree with this...a standard number that everyone subtracts, whatever that numbers is, makes things consistent and comparable. That's all im saying
I wouldnt disagree with this...a standard number that everyone subtracts, whatever that numbers is, makes things consistent and comparable. That's all im saying
You want to do threads like this a great service, get somebody to give some kind of a “ basics of measuring groups” type sticky.
I am still trying to wrap my head around the shear magnitude of internet groups where guys convince themselves that two holes side my side, or literally with paper between them, measure in the .100’s ?
jbell, I would like to see a draft of the measurement "instructions" so we all can comment on the language. The real challenge to me is when you have a group which ends up essentially a ragged hole, or an oversized single hole where 5 shots went through the target. With no bullet holes to speak of, how the heck do you accurately measure that? Maybe folks can send in examples (pictures) where the measurement was very challenging? I also suggest the instructions should also include a picture as examples of how to measure the various hole configurations, especially the challenging ones so folks can consistently measure as described.I agree with you guy, we tried to implement it back many years ago but it just seemd to not take. If y’all want I can try again with the next iteration of the 6X5 (probably next year 01/01/21). What does everyone think? If y’all want to do this what do you guys think the standard should be??
I will start another thread so we can discuss this there and keep the chatter to a minimum here on this one to not deter people who simply want to view the 6X5.
jbell, I would like to see a draft of the measurement "instructions" so we all can comment on the language. The real challenge to me is when you have a group which ends up essentially a ragged hole, or an oversized single hole where 5 shots went through the target. With no bullet holes to speak of, how the heck do you accurately measure that? Maybe folks can send in examples (pictures) where the measurement was very challenging? I also suggest the instructions should also include a picture as examples of how to measure the various hole configurations, especially the challenging ones so folks can consistently measure as described.
Just a thought...
I think I’m at the end of my current ability with bipod and bag. My mistakes show up at 50 but really kill me past that. End up with a shot or two in every 6x5 that keeps me from a very good average.Melglass, that is pretty consistent shooting between your Bargara and CZ. I have them updated.
Welcome To the 6X5!New here (new to ANY forum), and thought this looked like fun. 50 yard 6x5 using CZ 457 Varmint Precision Chassis, Diamondback Tactical, SK Yellow Box, Bipod and rear bag. Average .274", best .189".