You and me both brother. Shocking no one else sees it.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Please enlighten us on whats so shocking? Are you calling me a liar? Please, do tell all of us. Those groups measurements are lie? They arent outside to outside minus .223 like I said? Say what you have to say and back it up with some facts instead of making stupid ass comments like that. Those black circles measure .5" outside to outside for your reference. Here's a picture of a caliper on one of the groups lined up best I can without holding it and the camera, you can subtract .223 on your own so you can show everyone the liar I am.
Some of you guys crack me up. Ill give back the prizes now. You got me. lmfaoNext time you call me a liar I wont play so nice.
Please enlighten us on whats so shocking? Are you calling me a liar? Please, do tell all of us. Those groups measurements are lie? They arent outside to outside minus .223 like I said? Say what you have to say and back it up with some facts instead of making stupid ass comments like that. Those black circles measure .5" outside to outside for your reference. Here's a picture of a caliper on one of the groups lined up best I can without holding it and the camera, you can subtract .223 on your own so you can show everyone the liar I am.
Next time you call me a liar I wont play so nice.
No, NOT calling you a liar. But I do say your calculated measurement is incorrect. You clearly stated that the holes in that paper are 0.117" Therefore you should be subtracting 0.117" from your measurements not .223 to give correct value. Is that not correct?
Incorrect by who? You? So when ontarget software scores targets and it subtracts .223 its also wrong?? It doesn't subtract .117... Like I also said in my previous post, do what you want with the info. We arent competing for prizes or world records here..... i don't know a single other person here subtracting .117 when they are scoring their 22lr targets. That's news to me...i also don't really care. I've scored every single RimX target ive posted the same way. Take the info and do what you want with it.
Understand we are not competing for prizes. I do not question the targets and appreciate the info you have posted. But will have to agree to disagree about your calculations. Ontarget assumes .223 holes are .233 in diameter and that is why it subtracts .223" from edge to edge to get center to center distance. If holes are .117" for whatever reason, simple math states you must subtract .117" from edge to edge measurement to get center to center distance.
So what your trying to tell me is a 22lr bullet diameter is fluid??? It changes from shot to shot, target to target, person to person?? I think not.. i can shoot my RimX through 4 different targets, cardboard, thick paper, computer paper and that hole is going to vary in size on each of those.... the bullet still is the same size shot in all those targets...
And OnTarget does not assume bullet hole size made in paper.. it subtracts bullet diameter....Jeff will tell you this if you reach out to him about how his software calculates... thats how everyone calculates groups by hand...they subtract bullet diameter. This isn't anything new. We can agree to disagree
Out of curiosity, why does the bullet hole change diameter vs bullet diameter? Is the soft lead bullet compressed going through the barrel and shrinking it? Is it the elasticity of the target being shot?
And here is the same group scored with OnTarget for reference. This is why I only measure 22LR targets by hand with calipers. Every other target I post on here is scored with OnTarget. But 22LR, its so hard to find the center of each group with OnTarget with 22LR varying holes. Virtually impossible to find the center and match up the outer ring to the outside edge at the same time.
That I dont have an answer for you on. Im just stating the facts. I have 3 different target types here from heavy flooring paper, to printer paper to cardboard to thin butcher paper all shot with 22LR. the hole size varies on each
I measure my targets the same way that you do. I am just curious as to why it happens
Also, how could there be any standardization in measuring groups if each guy was subtracting a different size hole?? There couldnt....thats why everyone subtracts the bullet diameter. I can post 3 more pictures of 3 different hole sizes on the above target I keep posting. Holes ranging from .117, to .145 to .174.... How do you explain that? Idk but this is why I and everyone I know just subtracts bullet diameter
Directly From On Targets Web-page
Measuring Group Size
There are several methods for measuring and calculating the size of a group of bullet holes in a target. These methods vary depending on the tools and equipment available but the goal is always the same; determine the center points of two or more holes in a target. Once you know the position of the holes center points, the group information can be calculated very easily.
Traditional Methods
The two most common methods of measuring bullet hole groups involve the use of calipers. Both methods are used to calculate the maximum spread, or max center-to-center distance, of the group. Let’s take a quick look at each.
In the first method a standard set of calipers is used to measure the extreme distance to the outside edges of the holes in the group. Then several holes are measured and an average size calculated. Finally the average hole size is subtracted from the overall measurement resulting in the group center-to-center distance.
The second method of measurement uses a set of calipers modified to hold a pair of clear circular templates along with an eyepiece for optical magnification. The operator looks through the eyepiece, aligns the two circles with the extreme holes of the group, and reads the center-to-center distance directly from the caliper.
With practice both methods can produce very accurate results and be done rather quickly. The first method is more commonly used because it can be done with a standard set of calipers. The second is used to certify groups because of its greater accuracy.
OnTarget Method
OnTarget uses the center of the bullet holes, regardless of caliber, to calculate the group information. The size of holes in a target will vary depending on several factors including, bullet construction, velocity, and target material. Basing calculations on the center of the hole eliminates error due these variances in hole size.
To measure a group, first an image of the target is imported or scanned. The bullet hole size is set, along with the target distance, the point of aim, and the reference distance if needed. The user zooms in on the bullet holes, selects the hole input tool and clicks in the Target View. A circle, drawn using the defined bullet hole size, is displayed and moves with the mouse. The user positions the circle over a bullet hole and clicks the left mouse button to anchor the shot. As each shot is entered the group information is calculated and displayed.
The circle shown on top of the target image helps to accurately position the center point of the hole. Zooming in on the group, and even individual holes, provides for very fine adjustment of the hole position. At maximum zoom levels you can easily distinguish individual holes in the tightest groups. Because all calculations are done using the center of the hole, accurate positioning becomes very important as group sizes shrink. Even if the bullet hole does not have a clean edge all the way around the circle can be positioned very accurately.
When measurements are complete, the target information can be saved to an OnTarget .tgx project file as a permanent record. Group information and point data can be printed out, or exported to an Excel compatible .csv file.
Measuring Group Size
There are several methods for measuring and calculating the size of a group of bullet holes in a target. These methods vary depending on the tools and equipment available but the goal is always the same; determine the center points of two or more holes in a target. Once you know the position of the holes center points, the group information can be calculated very easily.
Traditional Methods
The two most common methods of measuring bullet hole groups involve the use of calipers. Both methods are used to calculate the maximum spread, or max center-to-center distance, of the group. Let’s take a quick look at each.
In the first method a standard set of calipers is used to measure the extreme distance to the outside edges of the holes in the group. Then several holes are measured and an average size calculated. Finally the average hole size is subtracted from the overall measurement resulting in the group center-to-center distance.
The second method of measurement uses a set of calipers modified to hold a pair of clear circular templates along with an eyepiece for optical magnification. The operator looks through the eyepiece, aligns the two circles with the extreme holes of the group, and reads the center-to-center distance directly from the caliper.
With practice both methods can produce very accurate results and be done rather quickly. The first method is more commonly used because it can be done with a standard set of calipers. The second is used to certify groups because of its greater accuracy.
OnTarget Method
OnTarget uses the center of the bullet holes, regardless of caliber, to calculate the group information. The size of holes in a target will vary depending on several factors including, bullet construction, velocity, and target material. Basing calculations on the center of the hole eliminates error due these variances in hole size.
To measure a group, first an image of the target is imported or scanned. The bullet hole size is set, along with the target distance, the point of aim, and the reference distance if needed. The user zooms in on the bullet holes, selects the hole input tool and clicks in the Target View. A circle, drawn using the defined bullet hole size, is displayed and moves with the mouse. The user positions the circle over a bullet hole and clicks the left mouse button to anchor the shot. As each shot is entered the group information is calculated and displayed.
The circle shown on top of the target image helps to accurately position the center point of the hole. Zooming in on the group, and even individual holes, provides for very fine adjustment of the hole position. At maximum zoom levels you can easily distinguish individual holes in the tightest groups. Because all calculations are done using the center of the hole, accurate positioning becomes very important as group sizes shrink. Even if the bullet hole does not have a clean edge all the way around the circle can be positioned very accurately.
When measurements are complete, the target information can be saved to an OnTarget .tgx project file as a permanent record. Group information and point data can be printed out, or exported to an Excel compatible .csv file.
Yep, 2 shots ain't a group though.
Measure those holes with 6 different non-professionally calibrated calipers and you'll likely get 4+ different numbers. So focusing solely on the numbers, despite precieved internet fame value, is an effort in futility anyways.
I've been a professionally employed engineer for over 32 years and work with a staff of engineers that develop very sophisticated consumer products. In my experience even cheap calipers are very accurate +- .001".
I have always measured edge to edge from the black circle around the bullet hole, then subtracted one bullet diameter. Measuring the hole will always be smaller than the ring around it where the bullet "wiped" the target. I think this is what some are seeing.
Absolutely incredible results however you measure these groups!
Thank you Padom and Orkan for all that you do! The information is priceless!
Absolutely incredible results however you measure these groups!
Thank you Padom and Orkan for all that you do! The information is priceless!
Well your sample size of cheap calipers must be very small....I myself have had cheap calipers go to shit giving varying results measuring the same item multiple times and checking against a calibration block. This has been discussed on SH for many many years, and there is a thread on it right now with guys having inaccurate readings with cheap calipers. It happens, thats a fact.
Ive said it time and time again. The results are the results, guys asked the method for measuring and thats been posted. There is no hiding that. You get out of those results what you wish. It makes no difference to me. The method of subtracting bullet diameter has been used for a long time. If some of you dont agree, or dont think thats the right way to do it, so be it. Ignore the results then.
Most importantly you post clear images of the groups so individuals can judge and compare for themselves. Also what you are providing is more significant than a prize or gold medal. As an internet influencer, you are effecting the buying decisions of likely hundreds, maybe thousands of customers. You have "influenced" me to spend about 5K on a RimX with Bart barrel, B and A trigger, etc. I look forward to reading you reviews as they are very informative. When wanting to accurately compare groups I use the images you provide and digitally measure and compare the results. I have access to a video analysis lab with sophisticated digital imaging equipment and two digital imaging technicians at work.
The five* or so rounds I ran through it last week seemed nice. Maybe I need to cycle your Vudoo and compare it to mine.
*He doesn't like people touching his stuff. I had to twist his arm to shoot it. Hence only five rounds.
Humm, OnTarget methodology is distinctly different ... first it uses the nominal bullet size for scaling the circle you place around your bullet hole then you center this circle on your bullet hole - you DON'T position the circles so that they just touch the outside of the bullet hole (as you would a pair of calipers...
Imagine a target paper that only records a 1/16" hole for each shot, and two bullet hole centers .224" apart. With OnTarget you would center your .224" circles on the two 1/16" holes and get e-e .448" and c-c .224". With calipers you would get e-e .2865" and c-c .0625"....
@padom much as i REALLY appreciate all the excellent information and sanity you consistently provide to all of us, and i accept and applaud your consistency and description of how you are measuring your targets ...... i think you are on very thin ice when you try and defend the accuracy of your measurements.
As you clearly describe, your measurements are internally consistent and can be compared with everything else you have shown - they just have to be re-calibrated before they can be compared with numbers from someone who believes they are measuring for accuracy.
I find the stuff you post interesting enough that i often take the time to take your pictures into OnTarget or Ballistics-X and remeasure them so that i get the sort of numbers that 'I' am familiar with - then i can meaningfully compare your results with mine.
You have vastly more experience than I have and, i suspect, don't really 'use' the numbers - i suspect you look at any group and instinctively know how it 'rates' ? i don't have that skill/experience yet so need the measurements to help me evaluate other peoples groups . Since I'm the one doing the 'work' that means that they are all going to be measured the way that *I* want them to be measured
They may be all measured incorrectly - but at least they will be consistently incorrect.Anyway my point in taking the time to write this is that I don't think the 'derision' is aimed at you specifically. There have been very many comments recently all over the hide and elsewhere about the general low level of accuracy & precision of group measurements, and lack of any common methodology - to the extent that it is often impossible to compare or take seriously some of the group sizes that people post. Of course, it depends on what people want to use the group sizes for, your results are admirably self consistent and can be compared against everything that you have shown - but, for example, they are unfair to compare against other results on @jbell 6x5..
What ammo have you tried? Multiple lot#s? Other things you have checked before changing the barrel?
Well this I would have to disagree on. Your assuming everyone in the 6x5 measures the way you do and Im the outlier. As this very discussion we are having came up a month ago specifically in the 6x5 Rimfire challenge. That discussion is still in that thread. You had the majority of guys saying they subtract .223, you had some guys saying they subtract. .222, you had some guys saying that they subtract .220 and you had other guys saying they measure the hole and subtract that. You will see in that thread as well, I stated my exact measuring method, which is 100% transparent with how I have said Im measuring here in this thread. Those results were still add by jbell. So, by your statements, the entire 6x5 is out the window. Cause I agree with you, there is no standard way of measuring in the 6x5 it seems. I though the standard was always subtracting bullet diameter, and if everyone did that, the results would be comparable. I dont think I said or argued anywhere that is the way accuracy is measured. Its just a consistent way if so many people are measuring groups for the results to be comparable. Thats all Im doing and all Ive ever done with all these 22LR targets, is to be consistent from target to target. But it seems none of that is whats happening.....
Most importantly here, this isnt a competition, no prizes or awards are being given. Its a comparison. The targets are there, the methods are posted. The person reading them can take out of it what they wish. If we were in a competition, the MD would be using THEIR method to measure all the targets at that match and then that method would be consistent for all those targets for THAT match.....
Last edited:
Now, lets get this thread back on track about the RimX. If someone wants to open up a new thread on measuring group sizes for discussion, thats best for continuing that discussion and not crapping on the RimX thread.
This is a great question you bring up about what I look at or get out of the groups and all the targets Ive posted that were shot through 5 barrels, all on a RimX, totaling over 5000rd to date.
The targets, groups, measuring were all done to evaluate the 5 different barrels I tested on the RimX. This was A) to test the performance and accuracy capabilities of the newly released RimX and B) to see how the different barrels compared and what barrel performed the best to better help all of you on deciding what to buy for your RimX. Its all data, period. It was all performed, recorded, measured the same way on every target shot, through every barrel shot. While you may disagree with the measurements posted, what you can get out of all that data is how 1 barrel compared to the next with said ammo, all else being equal. As everything was/is consistent from barrel to barrel. That was the SOLE purpose of all the info/data/time/money I invested and posted. Hopefully that clears up the intent of all these targets.
Cant wait for this next review Im about to start in a caliber not called 22LR where I can go back to using OnTarget for group measuring.
Last edited:
I don’t want to run a rim x just in case I like it better than my vudoo unless someone sells their bartlein cf rim x BA. Then I might be able toThe five* or so rounds I ran through it last week seemed nice. Maybe I need to cycle your Vudoo and compare it to mine.
*He doesn't like people touching his stuff. I had to twist his arm to shoot it. Hence only five rounds.
I don’t want to run a rim x just in case I like it better than my vudoo unless someone sells their bartlein cf rim x BA. Then I might be able to
I know of someone in the group buy that will have a spare CF barrel to sell...... @chrome
Calipers are accurate enough for what we shooters need, but as an engineer you very well know that if you need accuracy to .00x a caliper isn't even the right tool for the job. Even the ever popular $100 Mitutoyo calipers are at best .001 accurate. If you consider those cheap, I'll agree.
However just like a torque wrench, precision scale, scace or any other precision measuring device they still need to be calibrated every so often.
Otherwise if you're saying a $20 caliper is always accurate to .001... that's like saying a 700 will shoot with an AI. You might get lucky a few times, but to get $100 accuracy for $20 every time just is not going to happen.
The simplest, precise way to measure group size is to take the two holes farthest apart in a group and measure outside edge of one to inside edge of the other. This gives the center to center measurement regardless of caliber. No subtraction of bullet diameter needed.
Center X 3 different lots, SK Match and SK Long Range all the same lots of each because I have a bunch, Norma Match. I stick with the SK and Lapua pretty much because I have a bunch.
I've done theme usual making sure I'm squared in the chassis, verified torque specs,etc.
Last edited:
That's fine for larger groups where you can see the inside edge, but won't work for tight groups.
I cannot speak for engineering but in physics no measurement is a single number but a number and the accuracy of the number. For example, 0.150 +/- 0.030.
If accuracy of the number is not known comparing two measurements is not rational. Suppose one number is 0.125 +/- 0.030 and another is 0.150 +/- 0.030. Then statistically the numbers are equal. But if a different methodology were used and the measurements gave 0.125+/- 0.010 and 0.150 +/-0.010, then statistically the numbers are different.
If the accuracy of the number is not known then the best one can do is be consistent as @padom has been.
@padom, please accept my apologies for further contaminating this thread, which, as you point out, should be about RimX.
If accuracy of the number is not known comparing two measurements is not rational. Suppose one number is 0.125 +/- 0.030 and another is 0.150 +/- 0.030. Then statistically the numbers are equal. But if a different methodology were used and the measurements gave 0.125+/- 0.010 and 0.150 +/-0.010, then statistically the numbers are different.
If the accuracy of the number is not known then the best one can do is be consistent as @padom has been.
@padom, please accept my apologies for further contaminating this thread, which, as you point out, should be about RimX.
Last edited:
Shoot for yourselves people. No matter how good you get... the internet will think they are better. Trust me on that.
Here's some 5-shot groups from the live stream I did the other day with my TS Customs RimX. I didn't bother to measure them. I also shot 5 flies on that stream. 1 round each.
Wind started to come up, but I managed to get some flies anyway. So weird that I did so poorly on the actual targets, but smashed the flies. Apparently if it has blood pumping, I can hit it easier. lol
Here's some 5-shot groups from the live stream I did the other day with my TS Customs RimX. I didn't bother to measure them. I also shot 5 flies on that stream. 1 round each.
Wind started to come up, but I managed to get some flies anyway. So weird that I did so poorly on the actual targets, but smashed the flies. Apparently if it has blood pumping, I can hit it easier. lol
Last edited:
I dont see any wild disparity? That black circle on my target measures 0.5" outside to outside. You just have the center shot out of yours. That group measures .273 outside to outside grease mark minus .223 just like Ive said all along.... Your group doesnt look drastically smaller to mine. I think people are looking at these targets and assuming bullseye sizes... You can run it in OnTarget yourself with the .5" reference...
Gotcha. I misunderstood what you were saying. And yes, I agree. And it makes sense because those holes are smaller than 223
And that's one of the reasons they're completely worth the price tag. Exact fit to each bottom metal/chassis. Plus they're smooth.
Busted mine out after a regional PRS match yesterday and we shot the natch targets out to 400 without issue. It hammered. Everyone was amazed how smooth it was and how well it shot. And I'm in vudoo territory
Busted mine out after a regional PRS match yesterday and we shot the natch targets out to 400 without issue. It hammered. Everyone was amazed how smooth it was and how well it shot. And I'm in vudoo territory
I suggest to call John directly and ask. I've a barreled Origin on order with him and he said yesterday that he has no control over when Zermatt ships the actions to him. Maybe he has a RimX in stock...
He posted on Instagram that the 8 to 10 week lead time has gone up to 12 to 14 weeks on July 29. I am still waiting on mine and I placed my order May 30th
If you have an action on order through any dealer today (including KA), you are best off to wait it out for that order. Cancelling for a potential in stock somewhere else will likely land you with an even longer lead time.
In the future, you can always check with any of our stocking dealers for stock or back ordered items. In no particular order:
Altus Shooting Solutions
Southern Precision Rifles
Northland Shooters Supply
Gunware
Hunt's Long Range
Bison Tactical
Montana Tactical
Deschutes Arms and Munitions
Brownells
Someone is bound to have what you're looking for or will have one coming in in less time than it would be if you order directly.
Thank you - Ray
In the future, you can always check with any of our stocking dealers for stock or back ordered items. In no particular order:
Altus Shooting Solutions
Southern Precision Rifles
Northland Shooters Supply
Gunware
Hunt's Long Range
Bison Tactical
Montana Tactical
Deschutes Arms and Munitions
Brownells
Someone is bound to have what you're looking for or will have one coming in in less time than it would be if you order directly.
Thank you - Ray
Last edited:
not me.
he has all the barrels in stock basically
i ordered a kreiger 20" heavy varmint and got it in 2 weeks, and that was over the July 4th holiday
Similar threads
