[Scott James]

I have not seen this one discussed yet so here we go. I see groups posted with measurments listed far off from what I consider accurate. I have seen allot of groups posted with paper between bullet holes that are listed below bullet diameter. Just wanting some guys to post some groups with real measurments listed with them to show how impressive littlebitty groups really are and what .250-.50 inch groups look like.

These two are what I would say would be mid to high .1's and what I may dare to say real real close to a .09 group. Some of the best I have ever shot with my old 22 rimfire! They are five shot groups.

Scott

 

[Wingman26]

It gets difficult to measure groups when they get this small, but here goes my best ever group at 100 yards, rifle was a Savage 22-250, this wasn't my rifle, it wasn't my ammo, but I was the one shooting it at the time.

This is the best group I have shot using my rifle and my loads, the rifle is a home built AR15 with a 24" bull barrel, 1-8 twist and a JP Rifles single stage trigger.

 

[Jake in NC]

It might cost me some brake cleaner but..

Scott..

That group on the right doesn't look like a ".1" if I'm seeing it right..

I wasn't.. The dot looked like another hole to me.. Sorry 'bout that..
The left group may be a .1xx but it's hard to see..

..And Wingman's "Shoot-n-see" group doesn't look like a .155 either.. From here it looks like ya could put two bullets side X side in the groups mentioned.. But the BC Dot group looks about right for the measurement..

.. All are great groups, tho'.. The .1's are nice for bragging rights and competition but that's about the end of their usefulness..

.. Care to copy one of those 100 yard "Screamers" and post it, Roy.? d:^) Jake


Asbestos suit donned..

 

[DAA]

A lot of the group pictures I see posted, maybe even most of them, I tend to think the group size listed with the picture is too small. That is to say, I look at the group and think it is bigger than the poster is saying.

But I decided a long time ago that it ain't no big whup.

Then too, it is a fact that pictures can be very decieving. I remember a couple of years ago, I was doing some load work with my .17 Mach IV. The target paper I was using must have been really stretchy, as the .17 caliber bullets were leaving holes that only measured about .14. So I actually did have some groups on those targets where you could see paper between holes, yet c-t-c of the holes was actually just under bullet diameter. Posting pics of those groups, with my measurements, would have raised some eyebrows, no doubt.

But, yeah, I think an awful lot of groups that get posted look bigger to me than they are said to be. But, it really doesn't matter.

And just for grins... Here is a picture of some groups from one of my .22BR's from quite some time ago. All 5 shot groups except for the lower right. Only took the picture because of the fly guts you can see around the one hole if you look close enough . The "big" group lower right by the fly really isn't a group at all, I was using that mothball as my sighter/fouler target. But after the first time I posted a pic of this target here years ago and got harrassed about not having a measurement for it too, I went back and added one.

My high 1 looks smaller than some low 1's posted above . But, it might just be me, or the paper, or the cameras, or the computer screen, or who the heck knows... Like I said, no big whup.

- DAA

 

[Crowhunter]

I have not seen this one discussed yet so here we go. I see groups posted with measurments listed far off from what I consider accurate. I have seen allot of groups posted with paper between bullet holes that are listed below bullet diameter. Just wanting some guys to post some groups with real measurments listed with them to show how impressive littlebitty groups really are and what .250-.50 inch groups look like.

These two are what I would say would be mid to high .1's and what I may dare to say real real close to a .09 group. Some of the best I have ever shot with my old 22 rimfire! They are five shot groups.

Scott

You can measure the extreme spread of the group and subtract the bullet diameter since groups are measured center to center of the bullet holes. I believe this is true, but i would not bet much money on it without checking another source.

 

[Kentucky Fisherman]

Here's an honest .182 five-shot group from my 6PPC, Scott. I subtracted .240 instead of the usual .243 because I measured the bullets and they're only .240. It would have been a really nice group if that one hadn't gotten away from me to the right.

 

[45TAJ]

Just read on RFC abt one type of match where you shoot group(s) then toss a single shot somewhere else for the scorers to measure to see what your ACTUAL hole dia is. Seems diff 22 ammo will vary enough to require this.

Now, it has been stated here before, that indeed the paper does not show a full caliber hole 99% of the time. I usually subtract abt .190 from the extreme spread trying to get a real world figure when I want to get picky abt .224 shooting. Even that may not be enough.........haven't done any testing and have considered off and on buying one of those 'spensive gadgets that the BR folks use. Just one of my things - just want to know what it really is......

 

[george in KY]

cool

A lot of the group pictures I see posted, maybe even most of them, I tend to think the group size listed with the picture is too small. That is to say, I look at the group and think it is bigger than the poster is saying.

But I decided a long time ago that it ain't no big whup.

Then too, it is a fact that pictures can be very decieving. I remember a couple of years ago, I was doing some load work with my .17 Mach IV. The target paper I was using must have been really stretchy, as the .17 caliber bullets were leaving holes that only measured about .14. So I actually did have some groups on those targets where you could see paper between holes, yet c-t-c of the holes was actually just under bullet diameter. Posting pics of those groups, with my measurements, would have raised some eyebrows, no doubt.


But, yeah, I think an awful lot of groups that get posted look bigger to me than they are said to be. But, it really doesn't matter.

And just for grins... Here is a picture of some groups from one of my .22BR's from quite some time ago. All 5 shot groups except for the lower right. Only took the picture because of the fly guts you can see around the one hole if you look close enough . The "big" group lower right by the fly really isn't a group at all, I was using that mothball as my sighter/fouler target. But after the first time I posted a pic of this target here years ago and got harrassed about not having a measurement for it too, I went back and added one.


My high 1 looks smaller than some low 1's posted above . But, it might just be me, or the paper, or the cameras, or the computer screen, or who the heck knows... Like I said, no big whup.

- DAA

and ya had the ball's to shoot a AGG !....good on ya dave

 

[jerrold]

Small group

Just spent the last hour trying to figure the picture thing out so I can boast a little. This group is 5 shots at 100yds. shot with a 6mm PPC. For the sake of the discussion, what size do you think it is??? Hint- it is not a "screamer"

 

[Old Dick]

Bullet holes

When I measure .224 bullet holes in my targets they almost always come out about .210. I use targets printed on standard typing paper. It is good to see several groups on one page (daa). That usually means the good group was no fluke.

 

[NYCSTRIPES]

I agree, but in reality its still a varmint hunters site and I am not one to break shoes about shooting ability here. We acknowledge a certain amount of bragging with regard to accuracy claims since we're after critters not BR trophies. Some of the hunting stories will most certainly give off that big fish feeling, but so what.

Here are some scans I have on hand. First one is a .175 group shot at a summer BR match with my Rampro 6PPC.

This was case forming loads with my Rampro in 30BR

This was some group shooting while working up a load for a custom Rem700 in 6BR that Mike Bryant built for me. I take the widest dimension of the group, take an actual measurement and subtract the diameter of the bullet for the group size.
I also marked the direction that the group measurement was taken.

 

[george in KY]

humm

Just spent the last hour trying to figure the picture thing out so I can boast a little. This group is 5 shots at 100yds. shot with a 6mm PPC. For the sake of the discussion, what size do you think it is??? Hint- it is not a "screamer"

hard to tell...i would gess a mid .1

 

[Bayou City Boy]

As someone has already stated, most groups sizes are quoted as being smaller than they actualy are because most folks subtract the bore diameter (ie., .224") instead of the actual bullet hole diameter size in the paper. Paper stretches when hit with a bullet and then springs back, so seldlom is a bullet hole as large as the bore diameter subtracted.

Without any specific training or rules, and with just a dial caliper, 5 of us all might come up with a different answer when measuring a group size. If you introduce a Sweaney type rule for measuring on official IBS/NBRSA target paper (providing consistent bullet hole sizes) with specific procedures used, we'd all definitely become more consistent ...and correct.

Anymore, I just look at a group that has been posted and in my mind I say it looks close or it doesn't in terms of measurement by the appearance of the group itself. Awhile back I saw a group quoted as being considerably less than .200". It was a nice group, but obviously not anywhere near as small as quoted as you could see two distinct complete bullet imprints/holes in the paper with some distance between them, and the third shot overlapping by about 1/2 a bullet hole size at the top outside edge (2 o'clock) of one of the other two distinct holes.

Maybe the shooter just measured the distance betwen the two distinct bullet holes?? It looked to be less than .2"

Probably the rifle that produced the group will still kill a lot of PD's or coyotes, however. (If the shooter does his part, of course!! ) For me, the rest is just a number tossed out on a forum that sometimes makes me smile a little bit when I read it .

JMO - BCB

 

[ArtinNC]

Some Pretty good groups posted here

Here is some of my targets. ( THEY ARE ALL 2"inch ONE SHOT GROUPS ) . As you can see I blocked the group size, I sure don't want to get anything started . Art

 

[Wingman26]

The biggest impediment to accurately measuring small groups is that the pointed bullets just don't create a clean hole, and a lot of us use targets printed on copy paper instead of target paper, and that doesn't promote clean bullet holes either. When you don't have a clean hole you have to estimate the edge of the hole, which is a process almost guaranteed to include errors, in a larger group the error doesn't amount to much, but the smaller the group, it would seem the larger the error. It would be easier if they were full wadcutters like 38 special bullets, but I don't think they would work too good at 100 yds!

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Ya know, Stripes, you're right.....

Here are the 2 best groups I ever shot. They were shot in the early AM July 4th 1983 when I stilll had eyes, and did a lot of shooting. Both were shot from a factory-barreled Rem. 700 ADL sporter in 22-250. This was my go-to coyote rifle of the day, not a bench gun. The stock was glass-bedded, and full floated. The scope was a Leu. 3x9...back then there weren't any VX's, etc. The load was 36 grains of IMR4320 with Speer 52HP's. I shot them off the tailgate of my pickup out in the lavarocks.

 

[Hu]

group sizes and photographs

Dave pretty much nailed it, no big whup regardless. However as others have mentioned, the hole or even the outside of the mark in paper, even target tag, is rarely as big as the bullet. If you are comparing groups between different loads it really doesn't matter. To really measure groups I like to shoot a hole off to the side and measure the exact diameter but even that isn't real accurate. If you hit exactly the same hole five times would it measure the same as a one shot hole or would it be wallowed out some?

After that, we all have to consider camera angles and editing software, not people deliberately cheating but slightly different aspect ratios. When all is said and done what you see on the internet ain't worth debating unless it is miles off. Some of the images in this thread look open to question however they may well be right. No way to know just looking at a picture.

Hu

 

[george in KY]

ook

the best 5 shot groups i've ever shot back to back..my bore was .237
but i deducked .243 .....dont know why but the pic look's like low 1's to me.so i hunted up the target and hole's don't look near has big has the pic.....FLAME away BUT I KNOW WHAT THAY MIC.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Wow...those are seriously small groups....nice shooting, George.

 

[Mushmouse]

let the toast begin

good chuck load