your thoughts?
- Thread starter Axis II
- Start date
- Status
kmw1954
Member
No I am not but if you'd like to educate me I'd me more than willing to learn.
OK, here's my attempt at a different approach. For a given firearm, ammo, and user combination, there's a cone of dispersion. Less accurate* shooters, or less accurate guns, or less accurate ammo will have a larger cone of dispersion than their more accurate counterparts. The total size of the cone as it intersects the paper (or other material) is what you see on a target when you test all the elements at once.
The cone size is additive. Each of the elements adds size to the cone. Nothing can take away cone size that another element adds.
Let's start from the shooter's perspective. Everyone shooting freehand has some amount of "wobble" in their hold. A world-class bullseye shooter might have a 0.5 MOA wobble. A proficient handgunner might wobble at, say, 2 MOA. A fairly new shooter or one with some sort of tremor might wobble at 20 MOA. If they fire enough shots, there is simply no way the group size is going to be smaller than that. You could give them a laser pointer with a telepathically-triggered, no-recoil "firing" system, and you'd get that size group.
However, in shooting real firearms, you have to use a mechanical trigger. Different shooters have different levels of trigger control. An olympic pistol shooter might introduce another .2 MOA of size with their very disciplined, straight-back pull. Most proficient shooters would add quite a bit more, and new shooters or those fighting a flinch might add 100 MOA or more. This adds to the size of the cone the shooter had during their hold/wobble. And no matter how perfect, it can never take away from that wobble.
We can keep going and add other things that contribute to the total cone of dispersion size. They will include things like sight alignment (the reason longer sight radius guns generally tend to create smaller groups, despite not being any more mechanically accurate), straightness of the bore, etc. Eventually we will get to the interaction of the cartridge with the gun and to the bullet itself.
Now, there's one more thing to understand about this cone of dispersion concept: You can't see the actual cone, you can only see the evidence of it on the paper. If you're going to compare cone sizes, the closer in size the cones, the more shots it will take to be able to tell the difference between them. If you're comparing Brian Zinn with his match gun and match ammo to a new shooter with a rust-bored H&R revolver and undersized bullets, you'll only need for them to shoot a few shots to be able to tell which combination has the smaller cone (it'll be Zinn, obviously). If you're comparing Brian Zinn and his match gun with his match ammo versus Brian Zinn and his match gun with ammo that is similar to his match ammo but has an additional +/- 0.1 grain of powder versus his match ammo, he's going to have to shoot a lot of shots with both before you can confidently say which is the larger cone.
Now, I don't know you, but I'm guessing you're not Brian Zinn, nor one of his closest competitors (and I'm not either... that's not an insult). And the gun you plan to use for self-defense probably isn't whatever tuned-up 1911 trophy thing he's using. You've got a cone of X size before the variables of the ammo even get involved. If you shoot 5 shots with one load and you shoot 5 shots of another load, you have no realistic way to tell whether the difference is due to ammo or just random variation. You'd have to shoot a huge number of rounds to be very confident as to which total combination is more accurate.
Resting the gun removes some of the variables that enlarge the cone. By removing the other variables, you can more directly measure the particular variable you are trying to control. If you are trying to control the ammo and ammo-gun-interaction variables, then you try to isolate them. You can't generally improve your trigger pull by changing primers or crimp, you know, so including your trigger pull's addition to the cone size is just going to get in the way of identifying the more accurate primer or crimp.
Similarly, if you were working on your trigger pull, it wouldn't be ideal to bring a whole bunch of different ammo of unknown accuracy to the range... who knows whether that flyer is you or the ammo?
Now, at the end of the process of identifying an accurate load, you absolutely need to validate that nothing crazy happens when you take the rest/bench away. Absolutely. If nothing else, the point of impact will likely change, and you'll need to adjust the sights. Or maybe the load is just too hot for you to shoot without a big "pre-ignition push" without a bench there to stop you. But for figuring out which load/gun combo is most inherently accurate (i.e., which will contribute least to the total size of the cone of dispersion), you want to exclude the shooter as much as possible.
*For purposes of this discussion, I'm not going to pay attention to the accurate/precise distinction that many love to harp on. We're going to assume sights are well adjusted and that there's no issue of wind reading, etc.
Last edited:
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,270
There are two questions to be answered.
1. How well does the shooter shoot the gun?
2. How accurate is the gun/ammo?
Those are two completely different questions.
If you want to test the accuracy of the gun/ammo, shoot it from the most stable conditions possible. That will test the gun/ammo best.
If you want to know how well you shoot the gun, then you can shoot under whatever conditions you want.
kmw1954
Member
Dave all of that was understood from the beginning and I concede that. I also concede that just about every gun made today is inherently more accurate than I am and from all the shooting I've done I can almost guarantee that my reloads are also more accurate than me. But all that is meaningless if I cannot control the gun and reliably hit the target. I do feel competent enough to know when a shot pattern is me, the gun, the ammo or a combination. I do all my pistol shooting Free Hand because I want to be fairly certain that me, the gun and the ammo are going to perform as I expect and it's going to hit where I aim. If I can consistently put 5 shots within the spread of my thumb and little finger at 15 yards then I feel everything is doing it's job.
If I were shooting rifle, which I don't, I would be shooting from some sort of support, to yes. remove that wobble you speak of. While at the same time if I was hunting with a pistol it certainly would not be with a small compact type gun that was designed for concealed carry. Also while I've never shot a pistol with a scope mounted on it I don't think I would enjoy it either.
No I am not this person you mention and I don't even know who he is. I do have 6 pistols that I shoot regularly and also reload for. The loads I use are not optimized for each gun but the loads I shoot do shoot very well in the guns I do have, which would be two 9mm, two 45acp and two 380. These loads are the loads that fire the most consistently in both guns of each caliber.
If I were shooting rifle, which I don't, I would be shooting from some sort of support, to yes. remove that wobble you speak of. While at the same time if I was hunting with a pistol it certainly would not be with a small compact type gun that was designed for concealed carry. Also while I've never shot a pistol with a scope mounted on it I don't think I would enjoy it either.
No I am not this person you mention and I don't even know who he is. I do have 6 pistols that I shoot regularly and also reload for. The loads I use are not optimized for each gun but the loads I shoot do shoot very well in the guns I do have, which would be two 9mm, two 45acp and two 380. These loads are the loads that fire the most consistently in both guns of each caliber.
Sorry, I meant Brian Zins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Zins Repeat champion bullseye shooter.
Sounds like your load development is basically function testing and shooting to a not-unreasonable combat standard. That's cool.
Some people are trying to detect much, much finer differences in accuracy between loads. Your approach is a "good enough" approach, while they're trying to figure out what is best. Both are rational... for different goals/wants/purposes.
Sounds like your load development is basically function testing and shooting to a not-unreasonable combat standard. That's cool.
Some people are trying to detect much, much finer differences in accuracy between loads. Your approach is a "good enough" approach, while they're trying to figure out what is best. Both are rational... for different goals/wants/purposes.
kmw1954
Member
Well I have from the beginning pretty much conceded the second question and assume a reliably functioning and sound gun to be accurate which then really only leaves the shooter or the ammunition. I also believe most of us already have a fairly good idea of how accurate we are as a shooter so knowing that the gun is sound and our own abilities I believe we should be able to fairly judge the accuracy of our ammunition.
If you need to know your gun and your ammunition are .25 MOA that fine. I just want to know that I can place 5 shots inside the X ring at 10 yards.
kmw1954
Member
Somehow I get the feeling that these people that are Champion Bullseye shooters are not firing $400.00 - $600.00 production pistols either.
LiveLife
Member
I was going to suggest you try incrementally decreasing OAL but you are already doing that.
With most factory pistols and decent factory/reloads, you should be getting an inch group at 7 yards offhand or rested. If the pistol usually shoot accurate, I would also measure bullet setback to see what the variance is.
While I got accurate load with 5.2 gr of BE-86 and 124 gr RN, 1.160" OAL was used and many members got accurate loads at lower powder charges above 4.6 gr so I would try 5.0, 4.8 gr with shorter 1.130" OAL.
BTW, I usually load RMR 124 gr FMJ to 1.130" and 115 gr FMJ to 1.110"
someguy2800
Member
I absolutely hate it when people say that.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Years ago my reloads were far more accurate than factory ammo. Today some of the factory stuff is surprisingly accurate but my ammo is still more accurate. I can't speak for 9mm ammo because back then I never thought I would need to load 9mm ammo but it happened.
There are several shooters in my club that I have watched for years and they never seem to improve. They keep practicing wrong and never shoot any better. I guess if you think you will never shoot better you never will. I try to improve every time I shoot.
There are several shooters in my club that I have watched for years and they never seem to improve. They keep practicing wrong and never shoot any better. I guess if you think you will never shoot better you never will. I try to improve every time I shoot.
kmw1954
Member
Part of the excuse that I use is that at age 64 the eyes aren't as clear and the hand isn't as steady as it was even just 15 years ago! From here on out I don't believe anything is going to improve either.
entropy
Member
Correct. From the data the OP presented, it should be obvious that he was working on Question 2. Thus the advice from those of us with some experience working up loads to fire from the most supported position possible. Then when he has that to his satisfaction, he can shoot all the 'freehand' he wants.
The basis of your error. New loads should always be tested from a solid position before shooting offhand. Even shotgunners do this, at the patterning board.
Thus it shall be for you also, unless you choose to do something about it. Going to the eye doctor and doing isometric exercises might be good places to start.
Last edited:
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Probably not much to be found but you might try going a little shorter, maybe down to say 1.11.
BE86 shoots well for lots of people, but maybe your pistol just does not like it. That just happens sometimes.
I have a couple different 9mms and some "like" BE86 better than others. (all of them seem to agree they like WSF)
Do you have a different powder available you could try?
BE86 shoots well for lots of people, but maybe your pistol just does not like it. That just happens sometimes.
I have a couple different 9mms and some "like" BE86 better than others. (all of them seem to agree they like WSF)
Do you have a different powder available you could try?
- Status
Similar threads
