What Best Defines Accuracy?
- Thread starter Bart B.
- Start date
stagpanther
New member
Me!
Me!
Largest many shot group (my statistics teacher pastes a star on my forehead)
Me!
Largest many shot group (my statistics teacher pastes a star on my forehead)
Does the ammo/gun combo shoot a consistently small group over several attempts on different days with different conditions. If it does, then it's "good enough". Different days will produce different results, so consistently small groups that you have confidence in hitting the target.
Why do benchrest competitors shoot groups centered a MOA or more away from the point of aim?
Last edited:
This is the old question of precision vs accuracy. If your rifle shoots very small groups it is precise, but not necessarily accurate. If your rifle shoots where you aim but it shoots 4 MOA, it is accurate but not precise. If it shoots very small groups exactly where you aim, it is accurate and precise. I think I got that right.
But anyway, accuracy is measured on a normal curve (dispersion from POA), just like a lot of things in the world. A number of multi-shot groups would give you a statistically valid quantification of the accuracy and precision of the rifle. A lot of shooters never quantify their rifles' accuracy, they just sight it in (accuracy) and shoot for groups (precision), then choose what to tell people about it (usually smallest group). I have seen a lot of "1/2 MOA" rifles that struggle to shoot MOA consistently, but one day a few years ago when somebody's friend's cousin was shooting it, it shot them all into one hole.
.
I build rifles and I guarantee them to shoot caliber-sized groups with the loads I test them with (I provide that info to the customer). Sometimes customers use that data religiously, and other times they do their own thing.
But anyway, accuracy is measured on a normal curve (dispersion from POA), just like a lot of things in the world. A number of multi-shot groups would give you a statistically valid quantification of the accuracy and precision of the rifle. A lot of shooters never quantify their rifles' accuracy, they just sight it in (accuracy) and shoot for groups (precision), then choose what to tell people about it (usually smallest group). I have seen a lot of "1/2 MOA" rifles that struggle to shoot MOA consistently, but one day a few years ago when somebody's friend's cousin was shooting it, it shot them all into one hole.
.I build rifles and I guarantee them to shoot caliber-sized groups with the loads I test them with (I provide that info to the customer). Sometimes customers use that data religiously, and other times they do their own thing.
You're confusing accuracy and precision. The 2 terms can be used interchangeably in common language but if you are asking about precise definitions than you need to make sure you are using the correct terminology. The linked article confuses the 2 terms also.
1 shot dead center on the bullseye is more accurate than any group.
My post hit after Scorch posted... His definitions are correct.
1 shot dead center on the bullseye is more accurate than any group.
My post hit after Scorch posted... His definitions are correct.
So their point of aim is not affected by bullet impact. Most people have seen this as they sight in grampa's Ole Betsy for deer season. After about 2 or 3 hits to the bright yellow/orange/red/white/whatever target dot, it is no longer a good aiming point. But if POI is deliberately above POA, your sight picture will never be affected.
101combatvet
New member
Hitting the X ring consistently.
I am pretty much the perfect dupe for questions like this so I'll put down my initial answer was the first choice the OP gave, Smallest many-shot group.
This was before reading any of the other posts in the thread. After reading the other posts I suspect stagpanther has the technically correct answer.
P.S. I also make a great mark for amateur magicians.
This was before reading any of the other posts in the thread. After reading the other posts I suspect stagpanther has the technically correct answer.
P.S. I also make a great mark for amateur magicians.
stagpanther
New member
Meh, I've shot lots of .0 one shot groups.
stagpanther
New member
I'm curious--why not just take a first shot and then use the bullet's impact as the POA?
Because the 1st shot was several inches from POA. The next shot will be several inches from that POA. If even on the target.
Everybody has different criteria. I'm 1st a hunter who just enjoys shooting as much as possible at the range. Not interested in squeezing the last bit of accuracy out of the rifle or ammo I'm looking for an average of multiple 3 shot groups shot on different days over a few months.
If that average is right at 1 MOA I'm happy. Most of my rifles and loads will occasionally produce groups under 1/2 MOA. Other times I'm just having a bad day and will get some groups closer to 1.5 MOA. That is adequate for what I do and at the ranges I shoot.
And when shooting for small groups I don't care where they impact the target. Once I'm happy with the group size I can always adjust the sights to get the impact where I want it.
Accuracy vs. Precision: Sharpen Your Shooting Skills
For me (From field positions):
Optic: < 2 MOA/few shots
Aperture: < 3 MOA/many shots
Red
For me (From field positions):
Optic: < 2 MOA/few shots
Aperture: < 3 MOA/many shots
What then is a good field marksman? - Jeff Cooper
Does a soldier need to shoot well? Good question.
I know of three cases in which excellent fieldmarksmanship decided the action.
These were the Boers at Majuba Hill, the US Marines at Chateau Thierry,
and the Volksturm reservists at the Arnhem bridgehead.
There may be other such cases, but if so they are notwidely documented.
Chroniclers are rarely interested in battle techniques,
so the fact that something is notreported certainly does not mean that it did not occur.
Nonetheless, good field marksmanship is a rarity − in or out of uniform.
What then is a good field marksman?
In my opinion, a man who can hit a tea cup at 100 meters with his firstshot,
from a field position, in a 5 second interval is a good shot.
Try this test on yourself, but do not call forwitnesses.
People who talk about good shots are usually terrible liars.
Does a soldier need to shoot well? Good question.
I know of three cases in which excellent fieldmarksmanship decided the action.
These were the Boers at Majuba Hill, the US Marines at Chateau Thierry,
and the Volksturm reservists at the Arnhem bridgehead.
There may be other such cases, but if so they are notwidely documented.
Chroniclers are rarely interested in battle techniques,
so the fact that something is notreported certainly does not mean that it did not occur.
Nonetheless, good field marksmanship is a rarity − in or out of uniform.
What then is a good field marksman?
In my opinion, a man who can hit a tea cup at 100 meters with his firstshot,
from a field position, in a 5 second interval is a good shot.
Try this test on yourself, but do not call forwitnesses.
People who talk about good shots are usually terrible liars.
Red