A shooter calls his shot at 3 o'clock, but the bullet strike is right-in-there. From the call/strike corollary what are the possible shooter/target errors?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Advanced Marksmanship Analyze This
- Thread starter Sterling Shooter
- Start date
Re: Analyze This
Cheek weld
Trigger squeeze
Butt shoulder alignment
. . . would be my top three (given that the gun is zeroed and there is no wind)
Cheek weld
Trigger squeeze
Butt shoulder alignment
. . . would be my top three (given that the gun is zeroed and there is no wind)
Re: Analyze This
Perhaps the shooter did not compensate enough for a wind coming from right to left. When the shot broke, the barrel and sights were indeed pointed at 3'o clock, but the wind pushed it "right in there". I am not very experienced, so this is my theory.
Tim
Perhaps the shooter did not compensate enough for a wind coming from right to left. When the shot broke, the barrel and sights were indeed pointed at 3'o clock, but the wind pushed it "right in there". I am not very experienced, so this is my theory.
Tim
Re: Analyze This
It is impossible to determine anything from one shot taken with no information other than call/strike. The list of possibilities is so long as to have no meaning whatsoever.
It is impossible to determine anything from one shot taken with no information other than call/strike. The list of possibilities is so long as to have no meaning whatsoever.
Re: Analyze This
Coryt is completly wrong, call/strike analysis is exactly how a competitive shooter assures a better score from an event in progress. Only when the shooter can not call the shot will analysis not be possible. Of course, group analysis will reveal shooter/target errors, but this is after the fact; and, it will not help the shooter produce a better result for the event at hand. In my example there are, for sure, more than just a few explanations, but some should be obvious to shooters who know something about shooter/target analysis. My first post was to inspire those with whatever knowledge they have about the matter to comment on what they believe the source/s of error could likely be. So far, we have a few good answers. Later, I will post all the possibilities I'm aware of which would produce the result as mentioned.
Coryt is completly wrong, call/strike analysis is exactly how a competitive shooter assures a better score from an event in progress. Only when the shooter can not call the shot will analysis not be possible. Of course, group analysis will reveal shooter/target errors, but this is after the fact; and, it will not help the shooter produce a better result for the event at hand. In my example there are, for sure, more than just a few explanations, but some should be obvious to shooters who know something about shooter/target analysis. My first post was to inspire those with whatever knowledge they have about the matter to comment on what they believe the source/s of error could likely be. So far, we have a few good answers. Later, I will post all the possibilities I'm aware of which would produce the result as mentioned.
Re: Analyze This
Sterling I understand what you are saying. And yes you can use that method to help finetune what is going on. But given the constraints of the situation and given no further information. There is too much there to say ... it was this or that.
Have to agree with Corry on this. No other information makes all analysis impossible. Understand that you can gather ideas. However without further information the list of issues would be very long and now way of ruling out anything.
Sterling I understand what you are saying. And yes you can use that method to help finetune what is going on. But given the constraints of the situation and given no further information. There is too much there to say ... it was this or that.
Have to agree with Corry on this. No other information makes all analysis impossible. Understand that you can gather ideas. However without further information the list of issues would be very long and now way of ruling out anything.
Re: Analyze This
No, the list is quite short. Perhaps, your experience with the concept is limited so, from your perspective, you can not analyize from the shot call. I can, and so can thousands of smallbore , HP and LR competitiors. You have just not yet learned how to do it.
When I made my first post I suspected some here would say it can't be done, exposing their ignorance on the matter.
No, the list is quite short. Perhaps, your experience with the concept is limited so, from your perspective, you can not analyize from the shot call. I can, and so can thousands of smallbore , HP and LR competitiors. You have just not yet learned how to do it.
When I made my first post I suspected some here would say it can't be done, exposing their ignorance on the matter.
Re: Analyze This
Different areas of support among the differing positions. The lateral movement of the muzzle in the prone and standing positions can be caused by separate and individual reasons.
Different areas of support among the differing positions. The lateral movement of the muzzle in the prone and standing positions can be caused by separate and individual reasons.
Re: Analyze This
Trigger issue, Doped the wind wrong, Called shot wrong, incorrect windage adjustment, incorrect cheek weld or scope shadow.
If you know all the fundamentals were done correctly it's down to a wind error somewhere.
Trigger issue, Doped the wind wrong, Called shot wrong, incorrect windage adjustment, incorrect cheek weld or scope shadow.
If you know all the fundamentals were done correctly it's down to a wind error somewhere.
Re: Analyze This
Was the point of this exercise to try and sucker folks into asking for more information so you could tell them how stupid they are for not being able to determine what you think they should, or to try and show us how smart you are or both? I could almost see you doing a little dance when you got to type, "Cory T is completely wrong..."
There is a lot of information that is not listed here that I would know if I were the coach, such as distance and discipline. Optics or irons? Indoor or out? Is the shooter left handed or right? Was there a wind adjustment made before the shot? If so, what was it and what was it based on?
Without more information I would only be giving a guess at possible causes, and if my best guess were not the cause, then it would be as worthless as giving a completely wrong cause.
If your point was to get people to think, I can appreciate that, but you could have been more polite about it.
Was the point of this exercise to try and sucker folks into asking for more information so you could tell them how stupid they are for not being able to determine what you think they should, or to try and show us how smart you are or both? I could almost see you doing a little dance when you got to type, "Cory T is completely wrong..."
There is a lot of information that is not listed here that I would know if I were the coach, such as distance and discipline. Optics or irons? Indoor or out? Is the shooter left handed or right? Was there a wind adjustment made before the shot? If so, what was it and what was it based on?
Without more information I would only be giving a guess at possible causes, and if my best guess were not the cause, then it would be as worthless as giving a completely wrong cause.
If your point was to get people to think, I can appreciate that, but you could have been more polite about it.
Re: Analyze This
Lot of assumptions:
Shooting indoors or out?
What shooting position?
Is the rifle sighted correctly?
Iron sights or scope?
Is the target fixed or moving?
. . . but to name a few.
With all due respect, Kraig, I must, respectfully, disagree with ya . . .
Lot of assumptions:
Shooting indoors or out?
What shooting position?
Is the rifle sighted correctly?
Iron sights or scope?
Is the target fixed or moving?
. . . but to name a few.
With all due respect, Kraig, I must, respectfully, disagree with ya . . .
Re: Analyze This
There is not enough information here to anything other than guess, or simply list possibilities, which is mostly a waste of time. Here's a perfectly plausible reason for the stated issue. Nothing is wrong at all.
The 3 o'clock call is the right edge of a 1/4 MOA dot at 100 yards and the 'right in there' is dead center of the dot, shooting a known 1 MOA capable system.
Or, the 3 o'clock call is right edge of a .5 meter wide plate at 1500 meters, using a 3 mil right wind hold and the right in there is center plate.
Anyone that thinks they can tell me anything about what happened with the shot as described is fooling themselves, you have no clue what, if anything, is ACTUALLY wrong based on the supplied information.
Now, if you simply want to list possibilities for a shot striking directly left of the POA, given a perfectly zeroed system in a no wind environment where the strike is outside the nominal CEP at the actual range, fine, make a list. The list may even have the actual problem in it, and therefore a possible solution. Actual skilled observation of the shooter will prove far more productive in solving the problem, if one even exists.
There is not enough information here to anything other than guess, or simply list possibilities, which is mostly a waste of time. Here's a perfectly plausible reason for the stated issue. Nothing is wrong at all.
The 3 o'clock call is the right edge of a 1/4 MOA dot at 100 yards and the 'right in there' is dead center of the dot, shooting a known 1 MOA capable system.
Or, the 3 o'clock call is right edge of a .5 meter wide plate at 1500 meters, using a 3 mil right wind hold and the right in there is center plate.
Anyone that thinks they can tell me anything about what happened with the shot as described is fooling themselves, you have no clue what, if anything, is ACTUALLY wrong based on the supplied information.
Now, if you simply want to list possibilities for a shot striking directly left of the POA, given a perfectly zeroed system in a no wind environment where the strike is outside the nominal CEP at the actual range, fine, make a list. The list may even have the actual problem in it, and therefore a possible solution. Actual skilled observation of the shooter will prove far more productive in solving the problem, if one even exists.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is not enough information here to anything other than guess, or simply list possibilities, which is mostly a waste of time. Here's a perfectly plausible reason for the stated issue. Nothing is wrong at all.
The 3 o'clock call is the right edge of a 1/4 MOA dot at 100 yards and the 'right in there' is dead center of the dot, shooting a known 1 MOA capable system.
Or, the 3 o'clock call is right edge of a .5 meter wide plate at 1500 meters, using a 3 mil right wind hold and the right in there is center plate.
Anyone that thinks they can tell me anything about what happened with the shot as described is fooling themselves, you have no clue what, if anything, is ACTUALLY wrong based on the supplied information.
Now, if you simply want to list possibilities for a shot striking directly left of the POA, given a perfectly zeroed system in a no wind environment where the strike is outside the nominal CEP at the actual range, fine, make a list. The list may even have the actual problem in it, and therefore a possible solution. Actual skilled observation of the shooter will prove far more productive in solving the problem, if one even exists. </div></div>
It's obvious you are saying something cannot be done because you do not no how to do it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is not enough information here to anything other than guess, or simply list possibilities, which is mostly a waste of time. Here's a perfectly plausible reason for the stated issue. Nothing is wrong at all.
The 3 o'clock call is the right edge of a 1/4 MOA dot at 100 yards and the 'right in there' is dead center of the dot, shooting a known 1 MOA capable system.
Or, the 3 o'clock call is right edge of a .5 meter wide plate at 1500 meters, using a 3 mil right wind hold and the right in there is center plate.
Anyone that thinks they can tell me anything about what happened with the shot as described is fooling themselves, you have no clue what, if anything, is ACTUALLY wrong based on the supplied information.
Now, if you simply want to list possibilities for a shot striking directly left of the POA, given a perfectly zeroed system in a no wind environment where the strike is outside the nominal CEP at the actual range, fine, make a list. The list may even have the actual problem in it, and therefore a possible solution. Actual skilled observation of the shooter will prove far more productive in solving the problem, if one even exists. </div></div>
It's obvious you are saying something cannot be done because you do not no how to do it.
Re: Analyze This
All,
Most folks here who use shot call analysis for their shooting in progress correctly stated the obvious shooter/target error in my example is poor trigger control, although, not properly countering for wind would also have been suspect. The not so obvious possibilities for the error are about some aspect of the position becoming inconsistent such as position height, right shoulder height, and/or right elbow placement (right eye dominant shooter shooting from right shoulder), and varying head pressure.
Thinking about this stuff while still in the process of producing a group helps to produce a better result; and, for the competitive shooter, shooting a string without sighters, higher scores are assured, since doing nothing will likely see the error occur again. Also, correct analysis hastens motor memory development, since the shooter comes to know how important consistency is to hitting where aimed.
The key to realizing benefit from calling the shot is awareness of everything that effects external ballistics, as well as what constitutes a consistent relationship between the shooter, gun, and ground. I see new shooters who, by properly following-through can call the shot, yet don't have a clue about what the corollary between the call and strike could mean. And, by doing nothing they may produce a tiny group but one which is out in the 7 ring when with a little thought on the matter they could have solved the problem with a simple sight adjustment to counter for prevailing wind and/or zeroing requirement.
BTW, when there are a multitude of possible errors, the shooter who was aware of his position status and environment will be able to determine likely error through process of elimination.
All,
Most folks here who use shot call analysis for their shooting in progress correctly stated the obvious shooter/target error in my example is poor trigger control, although, not properly countering for wind would also have been suspect. The not so obvious possibilities for the error are about some aspect of the position becoming inconsistent such as position height, right shoulder height, and/or right elbow placement (right eye dominant shooter shooting from right shoulder), and varying head pressure.
Thinking about this stuff while still in the process of producing a group helps to produce a better result; and, for the competitive shooter, shooting a string without sighters, higher scores are assured, since doing nothing will likely see the error occur again. Also, correct analysis hastens motor memory development, since the shooter comes to know how important consistency is to hitting where aimed.
The key to realizing benefit from calling the shot is awareness of everything that effects external ballistics, as well as what constitutes a consistent relationship between the shooter, gun, and ground. I see new shooters who, by properly following-through can call the shot, yet don't have a clue about what the corollary between the call and strike could mean. And, by doing nothing they may produce a tiny group but one which is out in the 7 ring when with a little thought on the matter they could have solved the problem with a simple sight adjustment to counter for prevailing wind and/or zeroing requirement.
BTW, when there are a multitude of possible errors, the shooter who was aware of his position status and environment will be able to determine likely error through process of elimination.
Re: Analyze This
Sterling,
Can't say much, time is short, but I am actually at Gunsite right now taking a class from CoryT... who I have taken a class from before.
He actually has a slide specific to what you are asking, where he shows a single shot just above the head of a target, the next series of slides overlays the probability zone with the shot at the edges, as in, the center of one zone is centered on the target, while the edge of a complete miss is centered off the target.
You have to know the accuracy zone of the shot, to include the possible bullet deviations that are completely beyond the shooter's control. Especially at distance, as in we can sit here at 1500m as we are doing all week, and hold the reticle perfect still on the target, and "call the break and the shoot" Off or in there, and still hit or miss the target completely irrelevant of the shot call. The physical deviation of the loaded round, as in an example, a 30fps change in MV can be a miss... forget the wind, the call on the wind is simply a guess, and not representative of an actual fact of the matter... We can all agree the wind is blowing at 15MPH, that doesn't mean over 1500m, it hit the bullet the same 15MPH throughout the entire flight.
Basically all those critical of your question, are simply saying 1 round is too small of an sample size for any real meaning analysis. Let's say it was the first and only round fired... What is the accuracy of that rifle ? Was it cleaned, dirty, in the sun out of the sun, etc, what was the condition of the shooter, did you observe the shooter, did he indeed manipulate the trigger wrong subconsciously ? As noted the list is fairly long when you move beyond the single frame of reference you are thinking to things people are doing .
To say someone is completely wrong because they cannot read your mind, well a bit arrogant and a bit more ignorant wouldn't you say ... In the context of our XLR class you have no idea what happened.
Sterling,
Can't say much, time is short, but I am actually at Gunsite right now taking a class from CoryT... who I have taken a class from before.
He actually has a slide specific to what you are asking, where he shows a single shot just above the head of a target, the next series of slides overlays the probability zone with the shot at the edges, as in, the center of one zone is centered on the target, while the edge of a complete miss is centered off the target.
You have to know the accuracy zone of the shot, to include the possible bullet deviations that are completely beyond the shooter's control. Especially at distance, as in we can sit here at 1500m as we are doing all week, and hold the reticle perfect still on the target, and "call the break and the shoot" Off or in there, and still hit or miss the target completely irrelevant of the shot call. The physical deviation of the loaded round, as in an example, a 30fps change in MV can be a miss... forget the wind, the call on the wind is simply a guess, and not representative of an actual fact of the matter... We can all agree the wind is blowing at 15MPH, that doesn't mean over 1500m, it hit the bullet the same 15MPH throughout the entire flight.
Basically all those critical of your question, are simply saying 1 round is too small of an sample size for any real meaning analysis. Let's say it was the first and only round fired... What is the accuracy of that rifle ? Was it cleaned, dirty, in the sun out of the sun, etc, what was the condition of the shooter, did you observe the shooter, did he indeed manipulate the trigger wrong subconsciously ? As noted the list is fairly long when you move beyond the single frame of reference you are thinking to things people are doing .
To say someone is completely wrong because they cannot read your mind, well a bit arrogant and a bit more ignorant wouldn't you say ... In the context of our XLR class you have no idea what happened.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...a bit arrogant and a bit more ignorant...</div></div>
Only a bit?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...a bit arrogant and a bit more ignorant...</div></div>
Only a bit?
Re: Analyze This
It has nothing to do with knowing how, it's a case of lacking information. You want a conclusion with no facts in evidence.
Right now, this is the equivilent of telling me the average veocity of your load is 2555 fps, having fired one shot over the chronograph.
To even suggest a percentage chance of a given error with the provided information is a fools errand.
It could be a flinch, side pressure on the trigger, pre-ignition push, wind change, sight setting, round with extra runout, milking the grip, bad NPA, parralax error, sight alignment, light angle, bad call...
I could go on. Oh, and telling me it's trigger control really means nothing. That's telling me the crash was "pilot error". It's helpful in no way at all. Is the problem a snatch/jerk, or side pressure? Perhaps the shooter squeezed with the whole hand? Maybe there is contact of the trigger finger on the side of the stock? All of these are "trigger control" issues. If you don't tell me HOW it's trigger control, how do you fix it?
It has nothing to do with knowing how, it's a case of lacking information. You want a conclusion with no facts in evidence.
Right now, this is the equivilent of telling me the average veocity of your load is 2555 fps, having fired one shot over the chronograph.
To even suggest a percentage chance of a given error with the provided information is a fools errand.
It could be a flinch, side pressure on the trigger, pre-ignition push, wind change, sight setting, round with extra runout, milking the grip, bad NPA, parralax error, sight alignment, light angle, bad call...
I could go on. Oh, and telling me it's trigger control really means nothing. That's telling me the crash was "pilot error". It's helpful in no way at all. Is the problem a snatch/jerk, or side pressure? Perhaps the shooter squeezed with the whole hand? Maybe there is contact of the trigger finger on the side of the stock? All of these are "trigger control" issues. If you don't tell me HOW it's trigger control, how do you fix it?
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has nothing to do with knowing how, it's a case of lacking information. You want a conclusion with no facts in evidence.
Right now, this is the equivilent of telling me the average veocity of your load is 2555 fps, having fired one shot over the chronograph.
To even suggest a percentage chance of a given error with the provided information is a fools errand.
It could be a flinch, side pressure on the trigger, pre-ignition push, wind change, sight setting, round with extra runout, milking the grip, bad NPA, parralax error, sight alignment, light angle, bad call...
I could go on. Oh, and telling me it's trigger control really means nothing. That's telling me the crash was "pilot error". It's helpful in no way at all. Is the problem a snatch/jerk, or side pressure? Perhaps the shooter squeezed with the whole hand? Maybe there is contact of the trigger finger on the side of the stock? All of these are "trigger control" issues. If you don't tell me HOW it's trigger control, how do you fix it?
</div></div>
Cory the only reason I'm responding to you is because I know you are sincere. There are two methods for shooter/target analysis. One is group evaluation and the other is evaluation of the call/strike corollary. Evaluation of the group gives the shooter insight to better shooting for events yet to come but for shooting in progress the shooter who can sort out the meaning of the call/strike corollary, that's to say, discern possible errors, the shooter need not make those errors again, and that is indeed the case. Now, I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. You're in fact so wrong on this your attempt to explain your position is just digging a deeper hole for you to get out of. BTW, the only occasion where your argument would hold water would be those where the shooter had no knowledge of what the possible errors could be as produced by a specific corollary. You say there are so many possibilities that a shooter cannot likely correctly identify the cause of error but that is a faulty premise, at least 6 shooters here easily identified the probable errors in my scenario. Also, many errors regarding position inconsistency can be addressed without need to do anything but become conscious of the consequence of becoming inconsistent.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has nothing to do with knowing how, it's a case of lacking information. You want a conclusion with no facts in evidence.
Right now, this is the equivilent of telling me the average veocity of your load is 2555 fps, having fired one shot over the chronograph.
To even suggest a percentage chance of a given error with the provided information is a fools errand.
It could be a flinch, side pressure on the trigger, pre-ignition push, wind change, sight setting, round with extra runout, milking the grip, bad NPA, parralax error, sight alignment, light angle, bad call...
I could go on. Oh, and telling me it's trigger control really means nothing. That's telling me the crash was "pilot error". It's helpful in no way at all. Is the problem a snatch/jerk, or side pressure? Perhaps the shooter squeezed with the whole hand? Maybe there is contact of the trigger finger on the side of the stock? All of these are "trigger control" issues. If you don't tell me HOW it's trigger control, how do you fix it?
</div></div>
Cory the only reason I'm responding to you is because I know you are sincere. There are two methods for shooter/target analysis. One is group evaluation and the other is evaluation of the call/strike corollary. Evaluation of the group gives the shooter insight to better shooting for events yet to come but for shooting in progress the shooter who can sort out the meaning of the call/strike corollary, that's to say, discern possible errors, the shooter need not make those errors again, and that is indeed the case. Now, I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. You're in fact so wrong on this your attempt to explain your position is just digging a deeper hole for you to get out of. BTW, the only occasion where your argument would hold water would be those where the shooter had no knowledge of what the possible errors could be as produced by a specific corollary. You say there are so many possibilities that a shooter cannot likely correctly identify the cause of error but that is a faulty premise, at least 6 shooters here easily identified the probable errors in my scenario. Also, many errors regarding position inconsistency can be addressed without need to do anything but become conscious of the consequence of becoming inconsistent.
Re: Analyze This
I'd send another one. I might make an adjustment after the second one if it also landed at 3 when I called it an X.
Agree that one shot is meaningless. Too many variables.
1911fan
I'd send another one. I might make an adjustment after the second one if it also landed at 3 when I called it an X.
Agree that one shot is meaningless. Too many variables.
1911fan
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd send another one. I might make an adjustment after the second one if it also landed at 3 when I called it an X.
Agree that one shot is meaningless. Too many variables.
1911fan</div></div>
Not too many variables for any with an I.Q, over 77 and who have developed their call/strike evaluation process. To wait for results of another shot before making a decision is not a strategy that will get the shooter anything but assurance of a result that falls short. Ask a shooter who is competing in a CMP EIC event who is about to send a second shot to 600 yards after shooting something like a 9 at 9 from a call right-in-there on the first round out.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd send another one. I might make an adjustment after the second one if it also landed at 3 when I called it an X.
Agree that one shot is meaningless. Too many variables.
1911fan</div></div>
Not too many variables for any with an I.Q, over 77 and who have developed their call/strike evaluation process. To wait for results of another shot before making a decision is not a strategy that will get the shooter anything but assurance of a result that falls short. Ask a shooter who is competing in a CMP EIC event who is about to send a second shot to 600 yards after shooting something like a 9 at 9 from a call right-in-there on the first round out.
Re: Analyze This
i would love to see you on an un-square, ukd range with no wind flags, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and put your money where your mouth is. matter of fact you're not too far why don't you bring your shit to thunder valley precision and lets see.
i would love to see you on an un-square, ukd range with no wind flags, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and put your money where your mouth is. matter of fact you're not too far why don't you bring your shit to thunder valley precision and lets see.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J--ROD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SS, did you mean to say "losing consistency" instead of "loosing"?</div></div>
Typo, for clarity I revised post to read, becoming inconsistent".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J--ROD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SS, did you mean to say "losing consistency" instead of "loosing"?</div></div>
Typo, for clarity I revised post to read, becoming inconsistent".
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and bring your shit.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and bring your shit.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive.
Re: Analyze This
Sigh. With your example, you've added quite a bit of information that is missing from the original premise. Now I have a known quality shooter with a known quality rifle/ammo combination, which was previously zeroed, shooting at a known range on a known target size with an error that is actually a measurable value. That was not the question you posed.
I provided a number of examples that fit your premise, none of which needed an error in 'trigger control'. Your response is simply, "You are wrong".
When you say 6 people were correct, you really mean that 6 people picked the possible answer that you wanted. I don't see any explanation of why my examples don't fit your question.
I'd write more, but I'm actually on the range teaching this stuff for a living.
Sigh. With your example, you've added quite a bit of information that is missing from the original premise. Now I have a known quality shooter with a known quality rifle/ammo combination, which was previously zeroed, shooting at a known range on a known target size with an error that is actually a measurable value. That was not the question you posed.
I provided a number of examples that fit your premise, none of which needed an error in 'trigger control'. Your response is simply, "You are wrong".
When you say 6 people were correct, you really mean that 6 people picked the possible answer that you wanted. I don't see any explanation of why my examples don't fit your question.
I'd write more, but I'm actually on the range teaching this stuff for a living.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i would love to see you on an un-square, ukd range with no wind flags, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and put your money where your mouth is. matter of fact you're not too far why don't you bring your shit to thunder valley precision and lets see.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive. </div></div>
Looks like code language for "No thanks, but I will sit here and keep telling people how ignorant I think they are because they didn't give me the answer I was looking for with the limited information I supplied"
Riddle me this: How long would it take for me to walk to my local grocery store? I'm walking at the pace that I normally walk yet I just slipped off of the curb yelling "I twisted my ankle"
Hint: There is only one right answer and I know it.
Now, everyone feel free to reply and I will let you know who the geniuses are who guessed exactly what I was thinking.
PS: I cannot wait to belittle the ones who say there is not enough information to deduce the exact answer. However, I will give partial credit to anyone who lists all possibilities IF my version of the correct answer is hidden within their list of possible answers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i would love to see you on an un-square, ukd range with no wind flags, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and put your money where your mouth is. matter of fact you're not too far why don't you bring your shit to thunder valley precision and lets see.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive. </div></div>
Looks like code language for "No thanks, but I will sit here and keep telling people how ignorant I think they are because they didn't give me the answer I was looking for with the limited information I supplied"
Riddle me this: How long would it take for me to walk to my local grocery store? I'm walking at the pace that I normally walk yet I just slipped off of the curb yelling "I twisted my ankle"
Hint: There is only one right answer and I know it.
Now, everyone feel free to reply and I will let you know who the geniuses are who guessed exactly what I was thinking.
PS: I cannot wait to belittle the ones who say there is not enough information to deduce the exact answer. However, I will give partial credit to anyone who lists all possibilities IF my version of the correct answer is hidden within their list of possible answers.
Re: Analyze This
Cory,
No example or additional information was needed to state possible source/s of error for original post. Of course, if you can't call the shot, that's to say, you were not able to discern where the barrel was pointed as the bullet cleared the bore, the call/strike analysis is clearly not possible and understanding the source/s of error will continue to elude you. Then, analysis of the hit when not where aimed is nothing more than a guess and indeed likely meaningless. Also, when the distance to target precludes recognition of hit placement, immediately after the fact, I could see the call/strike analysis to be meaningless. Perhaps this is what you are getting at.
Cory,
No example or additional information was needed to state possible source/s of error for original post. Of course, if you can't call the shot, that's to say, you were not able to discern where the barrel was pointed as the bullet cleared the bore, the call/strike analysis is clearly not possible and understanding the source/s of error will continue to elude you. Then, analysis of the hit when not where aimed is nothing more than a guess and indeed likely meaningless. Also, when the distance to target precludes recognition of hit placement, immediately after the fact, I could see the call/strike analysis to be meaningless. Perhaps this is what you are getting at.
Re: Analyze This
Reading your original question I thought I could help but its clear from the 35 posts above mine that I wont have the answer you want.
Maybe you can update us when you figure out what the issue was. Im interested in knowing...
Reading your original question I thought I could help but its clear from the 35 posts above mine that I wont have the answer you want.
Maybe you can update us when you figure out what the issue was. Im interested in knowing...
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BGEFIVEFOURONE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reading your original question I thought I could help but its clear from the 35 posts above mine that I wont have the answer you want.
Maybe you can update us when you figure out what the issue was. Im interested in knowing...</div></div>
What brought about the post was, having read a gazillion posts here asking questions like " is it me or the gun", it occurred to me that apparently there are folks here who can not make any sense of their shooting. These folks not having knowledge of shooter/target analysis will not progress as would be possible from getting a handle on what's going on while they are still on the firing line. Judging by answers it's clear the evaluation of the call/strike corollary is not in the lexicon of some shooters here while others clearly understand it. In other words, I'm not surprised at the comments to the original post. And, BTW, I was not looking for answers that matched mine. It was not a test. The responses just supported my thinking that some shooters here have the ability to use the call/strike corollary for improvement in shooting while others here either do not think such knowledge is meaningful for shooting improvement, or have no knowledge of the call/strike concept to even have an opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BGEFIVEFOURONE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reading your original question I thought I could help but its clear from the 35 posts above mine that I wont have the answer you want.
Maybe you can update us when you figure out what the issue was. Im interested in knowing...</div></div>
What brought about the post was, having read a gazillion posts here asking questions like " is it me or the gun", it occurred to me that apparently there are folks here who can not make any sense of their shooting. These folks not having knowledge of shooter/target analysis will not progress as would be possible from getting a handle on what's going on while they are still on the firing line. Judging by answers it's clear the evaluation of the call/strike corollary is not in the lexicon of some shooters here while others clearly understand it. In other words, I'm not surprised at the comments to the original post. And, BTW, I was not looking for answers that matched mine. It was not a test. The responses just supported my thinking that some shooters here have the ability to use the call/strike corollary for improvement in shooting while others here either do not think such knowledge is meaningful for shooting improvement, or have no knowledge of the call/strike concept to even have an opinion.
Re: Analyze This
Yes there are lots of people who would benefit from taking a closer look at their shot call vs. shot fall, and thinking a bit about what all could really cause that shot to go where it did.
Even a lot of *sling* shooters I know, who seem to have an incredibly arrogant mindset that just because many (but not all) of my guns spend most of their time on a bipod that there is no 'shooter skill' or gun handling at work to make it behave consistently and put the bullets where I want them. Most of them get that beaten out of them the first time or two they get behind a rifle like mine expecting the gun to do all the work for them. Some make the transition easily enough; others not so much.
The point remains that from the extremely limited information given in the original post, anything anybody said would be a guess, little better than random listing of possibilities.
And yes, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about and working on just this sort of thing during matches - as I imagine several of the more experienced folks that replied to you probably do in their own forms of shooting. I still think your initial question was specious at best, and your follow-up replies condescending and arrogant beyond reason - especially if you expect people to even *consider* what you're trying to communicate to them.
Yes there are lots of people who would benefit from taking a closer look at their shot call vs. shot fall, and thinking a bit about what all could really cause that shot to go where it did.
Even a lot of *sling* shooters I know, who seem to have an incredibly arrogant mindset that just because many (but not all) of my guns spend most of their time on a bipod that there is no 'shooter skill' or gun handling at work to make it behave consistently and put the bullets where I want them. Most of them get that beaten out of them the first time or two they get behind a rifle like mine expecting the gun to do all the work for them. Some make the transition easily enough; others not so much.
The point remains that from the extremely limited information given in the original post, anything anybody said would be a guess, little better than random listing of possibilities.
And yes, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about and working on just this sort of thing during matches - as I imagine several of the more experienced folks that replied to you probably do in their own forms of shooting. I still think your initial question was specious at best, and your follow-up replies condescending and arrogant beyond reason - especially if you expect people to even *consider* what you're trying to communicate to them.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PBinWA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread makes me want to go take a course from CoryT.
</div></div>
You should, he is a great instructor. He has me, a very green XLR shooter, hitting targets at 1500m with my 20" 338 lm on my second shot most times 3rd if wind shifts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PBinWA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread makes me want to go take a course from CoryT.
You should, he is a great instructor. He has me, a very green XLR shooter, hitting targets at 1500m with my 20" 338 lm on my second shot most times 3rd if wind shifts.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and bring your shit.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive. </div></div>
I'm quite secure in my credentials. Enough so that I don't need them in my Sig line. Maybe you should show up to a match around here and prove yours. You seem to think you have it all figured out . I want to see you on real world range in real world conditions so you can figure out what you don't know.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, pussy sighters and all the cmp shit and bring your shit.
</div></div>
You've got a vast vocabulary. I bet your shooting credentials are even more impressive. </div></div>
I'm quite secure in my credentials. Enough so that I don't need them in my Sig line. Maybe you should show up to a match around here and prove yours. You seem to think you have it all figured out . I want to see you on real world range in real world conditions so you can figure out what you don't know.
Re: Analyze This
Ahh, so now it's list some possibilities. Funny, but that's exactly what I said was the only thing you could do, make a list. That list is so long as to have basically no value, I did list a number of possibilities, which is hardly helpful.
I'm not here to suggest that calling a shot and ploting the result is not a good practice, or not useful. However, before that can be of any actual use, some baselines and some experiance are required. Otherwise, how is one to start eliminating any of the 'possibilities'? If the gun is not zeroed, how is a call/plot of a single shot of any value at all? If the shooter is not properly instructed and has no understanding of the basics, how does his reporting to me the call/plot of a single shot help me to help him?
I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, which is many people seemingly cannot be bothered to do any analysis of what is going wrong when they miss, seeking to blame almost anything except the nut behind the trigger. That self examination of the possible causes of error on each shot are important to moving forward certainly true, and many people don't do it at all, much less well.
I'm really only responding to this post at all because this is one of my pet peeves, making adjustments off one shot with no other context at all. Yes, operationally, if you miss the guy off the left edge on a 600 yard shot you run the bolt, hold the correction left and shoot. In training and practice, shooting a group provides much more data and a much better decision about what that actual problem is and how to solve it.
In this case, we call the shot .2 mil right but it is on center. Shoot a few more with the hold you planned on. If they group .2 left, you just under called the wind and your first shot call may just have been a fraction off, or maybe you had a little gust that just happened to cancel out your error. If they group on center, your call was good and you pushed the shot left .2 mil. Why? That's where some experiance and instruction help you out. You should KNOW when you make a bad press. You should be able to say to yourself, 'Yeah, slid my hand back a little and got side pressure on the trigger, that would explain it.' If you did not fire those other shots, how do you know if it's s gust/bad call or good call/bad press?
The slide that Frank refers to in his post above shows a target at an estimated 600 yards and the POI of a shot. We presume the shot is called center, but the impact is .9 mil high. So, we hold .9 down and most likely we hit. But what exactly do you KNOW about the sight setting? If you dial down .9 and take the head shot, do you hit? At that point two 1 MOA circles that represent the nominal group at that range slid in to show it's clearly possible to miss, no matter how perfect the shooter, since you have no way to know which 'group' containing that single shot you actually moved.
So, when possible, we shoot a group to confirm what is actually happening and therefore how to go about fixing the issue, if any. When we shoot for blood, you spot the shot and hold the correction and SHOOT RIGHT NOW! We accept the fact that that is not a perfect solution, but has a good probability of success in the available timeframe. Now, we can examine what happend and determine what the issue was with the first shot so as to not repeat the same error. What were we .9 mil high on that firat round? Oops, range really was 500, not 600, misread the MDM scale, so sorry. OK, we learned a few things. We now know the real range to the target, we know to pay more attention to the range in the first place and we know how to make a quick followup shot.
On the otherhand, I watch people 'chase' bullet holes with the scope dials making an adjustment after every single shot. Three days into the class, they still insist on making 1/4 MOA adjustments on the morning cold bore shot, trying for PERFECT and making us both crazy in the process. Unless you shoot 1/4 MOA groups every time you lay down at 100, you are doing nothing useful by twiddeling the knobs. When you shoot 1 MOA groups, shooting one shot and making a 1/4 MOA adjustment is not getting anything done. This is just what this kind of question/answer is promoting, do 'something' after seeing a single shot go downrange. Now, because and experianced match shooter who knows an error was made puts in two clicks right since his 3 o'clock call made a center hit and he knows that was a push with a right hold, I get clients trying to do that for every bloody shot they send downrange. Sorry, rant mode off now...
Ahh, so now it's list some possibilities. Funny, but that's exactly what I said was the only thing you could do, make a list. That list is so long as to have basically no value, I did list a number of possibilities, which is hardly helpful.
I'm not here to suggest that calling a shot and ploting the result is not a good practice, or not useful. However, before that can be of any actual use, some baselines and some experiance are required. Otherwise, how is one to start eliminating any of the 'possibilities'? If the gun is not zeroed, how is a call/plot of a single shot of any value at all? If the shooter is not properly instructed and has no understanding of the basics, how does his reporting to me the call/plot of a single shot help me to help him?
I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, which is many people seemingly cannot be bothered to do any analysis of what is going wrong when they miss, seeking to blame almost anything except the nut behind the trigger. That self examination of the possible causes of error on each shot are important to moving forward certainly true, and many people don't do it at all, much less well.
I'm really only responding to this post at all because this is one of my pet peeves, making adjustments off one shot with no other context at all. Yes, operationally, if you miss the guy off the left edge on a 600 yard shot you run the bolt, hold the correction left and shoot. In training and practice, shooting a group provides much more data and a much better decision about what that actual problem is and how to solve it.
In this case, we call the shot .2 mil right but it is on center. Shoot a few more with the hold you planned on. If they group .2 left, you just under called the wind and your first shot call may just have been a fraction off, or maybe you had a little gust that just happened to cancel out your error. If they group on center, your call was good and you pushed the shot left .2 mil. Why? That's where some experiance and instruction help you out. You should KNOW when you make a bad press. You should be able to say to yourself, 'Yeah, slid my hand back a little and got side pressure on the trigger, that would explain it.' If you did not fire those other shots, how do you know if it's s gust/bad call or good call/bad press?
The slide that Frank refers to in his post above shows a target at an estimated 600 yards and the POI of a shot. We presume the shot is called center, but the impact is .9 mil high. So, we hold .9 down and most likely we hit. But what exactly do you KNOW about the sight setting? If you dial down .9 and take the head shot, do you hit? At that point two 1 MOA circles that represent the nominal group at that range slid in to show it's clearly possible to miss, no matter how perfect the shooter, since you have no way to know which 'group' containing that single shot you actually moved.
So, when possible, we shoot a group to confirm what is actually happening and therefore how to go about fixing the issue, if any. When we shoot for blood, you spot the shot and hold the correction and SHOOT RIGHT NOW! We accept the fact that that is not a perfect solution, but has a good probability of success in the available timeframe. Now, we can examine what happend and determine what the issue was with the first shot so as to not repeat the same error. What were we .9 mil high on that firat round? Oops, range really was 500, not 600, misread the MDM scale, so sorry. OK, we learned a few things. We now know the real range to the target, we know to pay more attention to the range in the first place and we know how to make a quick followup shot.
On the otherhand, I watch people 'chase' bullet holes with the scope dials making an adjustment after every single shot. Three days into the class, they still insist on making 1/4 MOA adjustments on the morning cold bore shot, trying for PERFECT and making us both crazy in the process. Unless you shoot 1/4 MOA groups every time you lay down at 100, you are doing nothing useful by twiddeling the knobs. When you shoot 1 MOA groups, shooting one shot and making a 1/4 MOA adjustment is not getting anything done. This is just what this kind of question/answer is promoting, do 'something' after seeing a single shot go downrange. Now, because and experianced match shooter who knows an error was made puts in two clicks right since his 3 o'clock call made a center hit and he knows that was a push with a right hold, I get clients trying to do that for every bloody shot they send downrange. Sorry, rant mode off now...
Re: Analyze This
The funny part we have been here at Gunsite for 3 days shooting out to extended distances, beyond 1500m even beyond 1800m... As Adam above said with Cory's instruction to help develop and analyze everything that goes into being successful at these distances under real world conditions,
IE: Walk over to a location, find and range camouflaged human sized targets no more than 22" wide, then develop a firing solution and engage them. No wind flags, no points of reference for ranging just the equipment we are carrying. Which admittedly is designed for the mission, but still the shooter is a big part of it.
As a class we averaged about 1/3 of all targets engaged out to distance with 1st round hits, we had many more second round hits and just shy of 1/3rd were 3rd round hits, here and there we ran into a particularly difficult target and might have shot more, but mostly as a learning experience and not so much because we couldn't hit them on command. We spent a lot of time analyzing everything at distance, with specially placed calibration targets as they are called.
But to not get off track, I want to talk about this idea of knowing "where the barrel was pointed" when the shot broke. My longest 1st round hits were right around 1500m, under varying wind conditions from 8 to even 16 MPH... For me to get that hit the bullet went 755 Inches above my line of sight, and a 10MPH wind moved my round roughly 126" across those 1500 meters. The room for error is very, very small, the idea that any given condition is the same from shot to shot... please.
A 1 mile an hour difference in the wind gust over those 1500 meters is roughly 12" of deviation. if I am holding center on a 22" plate and the wind moves 1 MPH (realistic gusts were closer to 3 MPH) it is a miss... Off the plate. There were times when, due to mirage we were not 100% sure whether the target was actually hit, as they were less than reactive. In those cases we simply shot again, and most of the time we hit, AGAIN, a testament to the work put in by Cory. More than once this happened.
If the shooter has a reasonable expectation of shooting a 1/2" group at 100 yards and is shooting a 1 Inch dot. He can easily call the shot at 3 O Clock and hit the dot center and still be within his reasonable group size. Meaning he did nothing wrong to the point of calling it correct and through no fault of his own, hit the dot Center...
After laughing about this thread and getting down to actually practicing what we preach, Cory asked me If I called a 1st round hit at 1200m+ , to which I did... I was holding my wind and actually muscled the gun a bit torquing the bipod in the dirt, so the shot was less than perfect. Still I hit the target with a satisfying thwack !. What did that tell me, well I did several things all wrong which lined up right and put the bullet on the target, so clearly that target had a streak of bad luck. I knew I fudged it, still, sometimes life throws you one and I am happy to take it. Not much more, other than knowing I got extremely lucky.
Calling and plotting is a great tool, one that can help enhance a shooter's ability. Especially when no instructor is available. However you need to honest and realistic... Zero deviation is a physical impossibility. While you can mentally strive for zero deviation the reality on the ground is much more humbling. For some people. it is far more empowering to understand the true dynamics of the shot then to try and fool someone into believing in unicorns or santa clause, as if a Jolly Old Fat Guy is going to deliver you presents. Fact is, if you want a Merry XMAS you better work for it, get off your ass and go to the store and buy the wife and kids something or it's gonna be an unpleasant new year, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself he is coming. Same thing with zero deviation.
The funny part we have been here at Gunsite for 3 days shooting out to extended distances, beyond 1500m even beyond 1800m... As Adam above said with Cory's instruction to help develop and analyze everything that goes into being successful at these distances under real world conditions,
IE: Walk over to a location, find and range camouflaged human sized targets no more than 22" wide, then develop a firing solution and engage them. No wind flags, no points of reference for ranging just the equipment we are carrying. Which admittedly is designed for the mission, but still the shooter is a big part of it.
As a class we averaged about 1/3 of all targets engaged out to distance with 1st round hits, we had many more second round hits and just shy of 1/3rd were 3rd round hits, here and there we ran into a particularly difficult target and might have shot more, but mostly as a learning experience and not so much because we couldn't hit them on command. We spent a lot of time analyzing everything at distance, with specially placed calibration targets as they are called.
But to not get off track, I want to talk about this idea of knowing "where the barrel was pointed" when the shot broke. My longest 1st round hits were right around 1500m, under varying wind conditions from 8 to even 16 MPH... For me to get that hit the bullet went 755 Inches above my line of sight, and a 10MPH wind moved my round roughly 126" across those 1500 meters. The room for error is very, very small, the idea that any given condition is the same from shot to shot... please.
A 1 mile an hour difference in the wind gust over those 1500 meters is roughly 12" of deviation. if I am holding center on a 22" plate and the wind moves 1 MPH (realistic gusts were closer to 3 MPH) it is a miss... Off the plate. There were times when, due to mirage we were not 100% sure whether the target was actually hit, as they were less than reactive. In those cases we simply shot again, and most of the time we hit, AGAIN, a testament to the work put in by Cory. More than once this happened.
If the shooter has a reasonable expectation of shooting a 1/2" group at 100 yards and is shooting a 1 Inch dot. He can easily call the shot at 3 O Clock and hit the dot center and still be within his reasonable group size. Meaning he did nothing wrong to the point of calling it correct and through no fault of his own, hit the dot Center...
After laughing about this thread and getting down to actually practicing what we preach, Cory asked me If I called a 1st round hit at 1200m+ , to which I did... I was holding my wind and actually muscled the gun a bit torquing the bipod in the dirt, so the shot was less than perfect. Still I hit the target with a satisfying thwack !. What did that tell me, well I did several things all wrong which lined up right and put the bullet on the target, so clearly that target had a streak of bad luck. I knew I fudged it, still, sometimes life throws you one and I am happy to take it. Not much more, other than knowing I got extremely lucky.
Calling and plotting is a great tool, one that can help enhance a shooter's ability. Especially when no instructor is available. However you need to honest and realistic... Zero deviation is a physical impossibility. While you can mentally strive for zero deviation the reality on the ground is much more humbling. For some people. it is far more empowering to understand the true dynamics of the shot then to try and fool someone into believing in unicorns or santa clause, as if a Jolly Old Fat Guy is going to deliver you presents. Fact is, if you want a Merry XMAS you better work for it, get off your ass and go to the store and buy the wife and kids something or it's gonna be an unpleasant new year, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself he is coming. Same thing with zero deviation.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not too many variables for any with an I.Q, over 77 </div></div>
Nice. I don't agree with you, so you resort to ad hominem attack. I'd say "Go fuck yourself" but then I'd be stooping to your level.
I'm out of this discussion.
1911fan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not too many variables for any with an I.Q, over 77 </div></div>
Nice. I don't agree with you, so you resort to ad hominem attack. I'd say "Go fuck yourself" but then I'd be stooping to your level.
I'm out of this discussion.
1911fan
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: S_Phoenix</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PBinWA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread makes me want to go take a course from CoryT.
</div></div>
You should, he is a great instructor. He has me, a very green XLR shooter, hitting targets at 1500m with my 20" 338 lm on my second shot most times 3rd if wind shifts. </div></div>
Ditto...I'm here too- Cory's top notch.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: S_Phoenix</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PBinWA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread makes me want to go take a course from CoryT.
You should, he is a great instructor. He has me, a very green XLR shooter, hitting targets at 1500m with my 20" 338 lm on my second shot most times 3rd if wind shifts. </div></div>
Ditto...I'm here too- Cory's top notch.
Re: Analyze This
When this exact situation has happened to me...it was NPA.
Just sayin-
Now back to your regularly scheduled bitching and name calling.
When this exact situation has happened to me...it was NPA.
Just sayin-
Now back to your regularly scheduled bitching and name calling.
A
Augustus
Guest
Re: Analyze This
I have fooled around with a certain little 308 rifle that has been a sub-half consistently for a vary long time. At 100 yds where external influence is minimal it is very hard to screw up a group when firing off a bipod and a rear bag. I have deliberately screwed up my position in various ways and really didn't see big differences in group size. I have shot it right handed, left handed, tip of finger, first joint, wraparound grip, light three finger w/thumb on top, pinched the bag, solid rear bag etc.
The results are pretty much the same, 1/4 to 1/2 min groups. This is providing the position allows me to get still and watch the reticle until it bucks then follow through.
What is really interesting is how I have witnessed a few shooters trying to shoot consistent groups with their own rifle and getting poor groups or in some cases nice groups with occasional fliers. Folks will gather around these individuals like vultures offering advice and altering positions. Typically the more the shooter is tutored the worse the results. My cure on numerous occasions has been to set the little 308 down beside the afflicted shooter with these instructions, roll over here and try this one. Forget what everybody has told you, get comfortable, sqeeeeeze, watch the crosshairs until it bucks. Amazing, all bad habits are suddenly gone, shooter no longer is required to curl the little toe on his left foot.
A system that is not capable of holding the desired accuracy is bread and butter for folks being paid for instruction.
Now before you folks explode, be reminded that this post refers to shooters using a bi-pod w/rear bag. Shooting unsupported is a totally different animal.
I have fooled around with a certain little 308 rifle that has been a sub-half consistently for a vary long time. At 100 yds where external influence is minimal it is very hard to screw up a group when firing off a bipod and a rear bag. I have deliberately screwed up my position in various ways and really didn't see big differences in group size. I have shot it right handed, left handed, tip of finger, first joint, wraparound grip, light three finger w/thumb on top, pinched the bag, solid rear bag etc.
The results are pretty much the same, 1/4 to 1/2 min groups. This is providing the position allows me to get still and watch the reticle until it bucks then follow through.
What is really interesting is how I have witnessed a few shooters trying to shoot consistent groups with their own rifle and getting poor groups or in some cases nice groups with occasional fliers. Folks will gather around these individuals like vultures offering advice and altering positions. Typically the more the shooter is tutored the worse the results. My cure on numerous occasions has been to set the little 308 down beside the afflicted shooter with these instructions, roll over here and try this one. Forget what everybody has told you, get comfortable, sqeeeeeze, watch the crosshairs until it bucks. Amazing, all bad habits are suddenly gone, shooter no longer is required to curl the little toe on his left foot.
A system that is not capable of holding the desired accuracy is bread and butter for folks being paid for instruction.
Now before you folks explode, be reminded that this post refers to shooters using a bi-pod w/rear bag. Shooting unsupported is a totally different animal.
Re: Analyze This
Having there a bunch, if this is offhand, my guess is the shooter is firing while the front site is leaving the center rather than moving towards it during the wobble. I know Tubbs explains it well but I can't do it consistently yet.
If sitting, how far out at 3:00 is it? 10 ring, could be wind. If prone 300 or 600 most likely wind but could be position break down from fatigue or rifle slipping in shoulder.
JM2c, YMMV Steve
Having there a bunch, if this is offhand, my guess is the shooter is firing while the front site is leaving the center rather than moving towards it during the wobble. I know Tubbs explains it well but I can't do it consistently yet.
If sitting, how far out at 3:00 is it? 10 ring, could be wind. If prone 300 or 600 most likely wind but could be position break down from fatigue or rifle slipping in shoulder.
JM2c, YMMV Steve
Re: Analyze This
Stop feeding the troll. No points for guessing who that is. Perhaps he should change his screen name to 'Impressive 78'.
Stop feeding the troll. No points for guessing who that is. Perhaps he should change his screen name to 'Impressive 78'.
Re: Analyze This
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSQ41</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having there a bunch, if this is offhand, my guess is the shooter is firing while the front site is leaving the center rather than moving towards it during the wobble. I know Tubbs explains it well but I can't do it consistently yet.
If sitting, how far out at 3:00 is it? 10 ring, could be wind. If prone 300 or 600 most likely wind but could be position break down from fatigue or rifle slipping in shoulder.
JM2c, YMMV Steve</div></div>
You see it as I do for original post. First, it's a compound problem: the likely result of poor trigger control, and an unfavored wind with a sight set for no wind. Interestingly, you mentioned the standing position, no doubt, the position where call/strike analysis is particularly useful.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSQ41</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having there a bunch, if this is offhand, my guess is the shooter is firing while the front site is leaving the center rather than moving towards it during the wobble. I know Tubbs explains it well but I can't do it consistently yet.
If sitting, how far out at 3:00 is it? 10 ring, could be wind. If prone 300 or 600 most likely wind but could be position break down from fatigue or rifle slipping in shoulder.
JM2c, YMMV Steve</div></div>
You see it as I do for original post. First, it's a compound problem: the likely result of poor trigger control, and an unfavored wind with a sight set for no wind. Interestingly, you mentioned the standing position, no doubt, the position where call/strike analysis is particularly useful.
Similar threads
