Shooting Times Marlin Article - Wrong

[Picher]

The new Marlin 717M2 autoloader shoots half-minute groups according to Shooting Times editor Hutchencroft. The article was quoted as correct by another poster under the "Looking for a new .22 Bolt gun" thread.

Sorry, but the article gave the average group size of .65" at 50 yards. That's actually about 1.3 minutes of angle, not even close to 1/2 minute, which is really about 1/4" at 50 yards.

Picher

 

[Peter M. Eick]

WHAT!!!! THE HERESY!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!

You seriously don't believe what you read in a Gunzine do you? I thought not. We will let this minor faux paus by this time, but you are now on the "watch" list. Any crack like that and well you know what will happen....




Seriously, I just thought "1/2 minute groups" was like "tactical". It does not really mean anything, just a term thrown out there in Gunzines to help fill out the word count for the article. I mean really when was the last time your read an article in a gunzine that did not have flawless operation, 1/2 or 1/4 minute 100 shot groups and everything was tactical and ninja this or that. He was just so ingrained to write 1/2 minute that he did not even consider it. The editors just expect to hear 1/2 minute groups so they don't even question it. We as readers don't even question it when they say it. I mean really, you can't shoot 1/2 minute groups? The shame of it all! (but say you did and then it will be OK).

Go read the article on targets in Rifle Shooter for July/August. Back page article. EXCELLENT! It fits my thoughts exactly.

 

[Sturmgewehr-58]

the article gave the average group size of .65" at 50 yards. That's actually about 1.3 minutes of angle, not even close to 1/2 minute

The rifle can shoot an average of .65" at 50 yards and still shoot 1/2 MOA groups. The rifle obviously shot groups smaller and larger than .65". That's why the .65" is an average. 1/2 MOA at 50 yards is .262"

 

[esldude]

You might shoot a million groups and finally get one 1/2 moa. That don't make it a 1/2 moa rifle. Though it may be the kind of rigor many current gun rags use.

 

[Picher]

"The rifle can shoot an average of .65" at 50 yards and still shoot 1/2 MOA groups. The rifle obviously shot groups smaller and larger than .65". That's why the .65" is an average. 1/2 MOA at 50 yards is .262""
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't average 1/2 min when the smallest groups shot were 1 min. To be fair, the writer didn't call it a 1/2 min. rifle, it was the cover headline,. Headlines are usually written by other people. The writer correctly identified his group sizes at 50 yards in inches without referring to minutes of angle (1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.50, 0.50 inches). I don't know how he managed to shoot groups with such even numbers, though. Mine are always odd dimensions. Maybe he used a stretchy ruler.

Picher

 

[Sturmgewehr-58]

You can't average 1/2 min when the smallest groups shot were 1 min.

Did the article say the average was 1/2 MOA or .65"? You said in your previous post the average was .65" and you made no mention of smallest group. If the article claimed the rifle shot 1/2 MOA groups, and an average of .65", it is certainly possible. Anyway, articles in gun magazines are just really long advertisements. You should expect this sort of thing.

 

[esldude]

Seems clear enough. Picher said the writer didn't call it 1/2 moa. Nor use moa rather giving the groups in inches. The headline called it that. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

.65" is a 1/2 MOA for the slow readers, that is all. For the fast readers, then it is about 1.3 MOA.

And NO, we should not expect this sort of thing from gun rags. It may be common, but we really should not expect to be lied to or have data misrepresented to us. That would be to claim that there is no accountability.

 

[BoltTurner]

Funny how every time I read an article in a gun rag, the rifle is always sub-MOA.

Yes, the smallest groups they fired were 1.87", but they're SURE this is a sub-MOA rifle with the proper handloads.

Between the lines print: This means if you buy this overpriced POS that I just got paid to say is great, and you find out it is an overpriced POS and that we lied about it, you can't do anything about it, because we'll just claim that our evaluation was aboveboard, and you just haven't hit the right handloading combination yet.

 

[Picher]

It seems that some people haven't been introduced to MOA, except that it's about 1" AT 100 YARDS. Circles are divided into 360 degrees. A minute is 1/60th of one degree of angle and the arc between the legs of the angle measures a little more than 1" at 100 yards, but the dimension varies with distance, but is proportional to the distance.

One minute is roughly 1/4" at 25 yards, 1/2" at 50 yards, 3/4" at 75 yards, 1" at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, 3" at 300 yards. Most of us are used to thinking of minutes of angle at 100 yards or greater, the fractional portions of an inch 100 take a bit of thought.

So, a half-minute rifle will average 1/2" groups at 100 yards, and 1/4" groups at 50 yards.

Hope that clarifies it. Don't feel bad; the editors of a major gun magazine blew it on the cover!

Picher

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I am with you "half minute groups" BoltTurner. Magazines "tactical" just throw terms in "half minute groups" right and "tactical" left that just seem to "tactical" be there "half minute groups" to fill out the "tactical" article and make it seem "tactical" more up to date.

Just kidding by the way. I hate the way those terms get tossed around in the gunzines now-adays and they have lost all meaning.


Also when was the last time you read an article where some guy shot a rifle for say 500 or 1000 rnds of centerfire and really reported what it can do with many different loads. Or when was the last time you saw and article where some one reviewed a handgun and shoot more then one or two boxes of ammo down it. Tell me how it does after 5000 rnds of different ammo and then I will have an opinion on it.

Sorry for ranting....

 

[JohnKSa]

Read one review awhile back where the author admitted to not shooting the pistol being reviewed.

Saw another where the author shot rested groups from a very nice handgun at 15 yards instead of the standard 25. The results made it pretty obvious why he'd done the testing at the reduced range--but he had the gall to say that the gun was accurate anyway.

 

[LAK]

Ach ja; and no surprize. Still, well above average for a rimfire sporting semi.

 

[DOCSpanky]

Been a few months since my last visit, but this topic caught my eye.

Let's see here......

Average squirrel head is well over 1 inch in diameter, what's the point of spending boocoodles of money on a rifle that will make a ragged hole at 50 yards using a rest? All this means absolutely nothing in the field. What's important to a field gun is to be able to get a head through sholders shot on squirrell or chipmunk sized game. Most importantly is that this is done from the actual shooting position, and not laid aver a concrete bench with sandbags, rests, wind guages, thermometers, barometers, quiji boards, computers, rim thickness guages, scales, custom eyepieces, sextants, star charts, gravometric field detection reticles, laser rangefinders, and your daily horoscope, etc. If that's you gig, great, enjoy it, but I can't see spending all the dinero to gain 1/4" over a factory run of the mill rifle. I'd like to see what some people who talk about what great shooters they are against paper can do against a tree rat running then hugging the side of a longleaf pine, and knowing you only have a few seconds at best to pop him or your breaking camp to head to McDonalds for dinner. I went hunting with a chap who could ragged hole from 50 yards all day from his rest, and he fired almost 40 times while hunting squirrels and only killed 3, gut shooting 2 of them, all the time whining about how heavy his rifle was....

I want to know about the trigger, balance, natural point of aim, weight considerations, ease in mounting slings, ease in reloading, etc. It seems that almost all gunzines just want you to know how accurate the rifle is from a machine rest in perfect conditions.

blah blah blah blah to me.......

For my money my Remington 597 is the best out of the box accurate rifle I have ever shot. I have shot better 10/22's but many of those cost more than my house payment. As long as you don't overtighten the action rods, and keep the gun and magazines clean, I have had absolutely NO trouble out of this gun. Easily outshoots any Marlin I ever had, and outshoots any BOX STOCK semi-auto I have ever fired. All for $129.99 at Wally world. Got it in MossyOak pattern at this price. A small 3 power scope makes up for my failing eyes. VERY NICE! Remington subsonics seem to work the best producing an average inch from a real standing shooting position. The only thing I am considering is the volquartsen custom hammer to lighten the trigger pull some. Maybe that will reduce some of my flyers. And at $31.99, that still puts this gun at about the average starting price of a 10/22.

My 2 cents.

DOCSpanky

 

[mec]

Similar note. I just saw a write-up in Combat Handguns on the new smith revolvers- the ones replacing the k frame combat magnums. The author had access only to a limited time slot on a 50 foot range and was forbidden to shoot from a rest or braced position. So, He stood two handed and fired some circa 2" groups. He did what he could. Getting pretty bad though, when a gun writer can't find a decent place to test the guns.

 

[Sturmgewehr-58]

.65" is a 1/2 MOA for the slow readers, that is all. For the fast readers, then it is about 1.3 MOA.

For accurate readers (not Double Naught Spies) .65" is 1.24 MOA at 50 yards.

The confusion was whether the article claimed the rifle could shoot 1/2 MOA groups and still average .65", which is possible. If the rifle fired one group .262" or smaller at 50 yards, it is capable of 1/2 MOA.

Here is the source of the confusion: "Sorry, but the article gave the average group size of .65" at 50 yards. That's actually about 1.3 minutes of angle, not even close to 1/2 minute, which is really about 1/4" at 50 yards." Picher never mentioned that the smallest groups fired in the article were 1 MOA until the fifth post. He only mentioned the .65" average.

It seems that some people haven't been introduced to MOA, except that it's about 1" AT 100 YARDS.

I am aware of the concept of minute of angle. To be exact, it is 1.047" at 100 yards. You don't seem to understand the concept of averages.

 

[esldude]

Sturmgewehr-58,

Picher clearly understands averages. One might at this point start trying to understand the appropriate use of averages if one had difficulty in that area. Which Picher doesn't.

 

[Picher]

Yes, being an engineering type, I'm familiar with averages, standard deviation, and several other statistical methods.

I wish that instead of assuming I didn't know what I was writing about, a person would simply ask how I arrived at my determination.

My point in posting was to note that the Magazine, which shall remain nameless, (but who's initials are S.T., ) screwed up on the Cover and people on this Board were using the fouled-up information to argue that the Marlin was a 1/2 minute rifle.

Picher

 

[JohnKSa]

To be exact, it is 1.047" at 100 yards.

To be exact, it is not. To be exact, 1MOA at 100 yards is pi/3 which is APPROXIMATELY 1.047". I know that's nit-picky, but you did say "exact."

BTW, I think you missed this part of one of Picher's posts "You can't average 1/2 min when the smallest groups shot were 1 min."

 

[LAK]

Averages aside; any rifle that sometimes shoots into say "half MOA" can at least be said to be capable of shooting half MOA. Regardless of the aggregate average.