I have seen lots of targets posted on the internet showing impressive shot groups. Some show 3 shot groups, some show 5 shot groups and so forth. Often, while shooting my 6 shot revolver, I'll group 3 or 4 shots pretty good and then the next 2 or 3 will open it up. Should I quit while I am ahead and take a picture, or must I fire all 6 shots? If I am firing a single shot, do I simply count the 1 shot. Whereas if my gun holds 15 rounds do I have to count them all? Also, how many groups do you shoot before you manage to pull off the one for the camera? Or can you do it all day long? Be honest now.LOL
What is a "group" and often can you do it?
- Thread starter AL45
- Start date
Closing The Gap
New member
I only use 3 shot groups from a bench to test the accuracy of a given brand/type of ammo. That way I know for certain when shooting off hand the inaccuracy is all me. 
Sooner or later if you shoot a particular gun enough you will end up with a remarkable group. The trick is deciding if the group measures the capabilities of the gun or if it is a mathematical aberration no more meaningful than a collection of called wild shots on a bad day. I try to shoot groups at perfectly contrasted targets in ideal light under conditions of no wind. In actual field conditions I may lack the ability to score a mediocre hit at half the distance of my best groups. A man can spend his life studying the vagaries of the wind and the light only to realize how little he knows.
In the cliff notes version of Carlos Hathcock's method of shooter training:
You only shoot one shot per day.
You "call" that shot, after it leaves the barrel you make your best estimate of whether it was high, low, left, right, . . . and by how much.
You 100%, thoroughly clean the weapon after that shot: chamber, barrel,etc.
You log, written down in a log book: air temp, wind speed, direction, time of day, typical weather pattern name (fair, sunny, rainy, foggy, etc.)
You also log the ammo: bullet, powder, amount of powder, primer, etc.
After several months:
1. Your called shots will be "called" better
2. You will have a "dossier" of your capabilities with that rifle, that you can refer back to when you come up against the same conditions later on.
3. You will find out that you are a better shooter later than you were when you started.
I am in the process of starting this with my M1A loaded (waiting on some supplies to show up).
My personal reasoning for preferring this method is that I have seen too many people (I used to be one) who would just go out, . . . bust a box of ammo, or 2 or 3, . . . and then complain that it doesn't seem to help.
I want to become a better shooter, . . . and I'm going to try this method, . . . Good Lord willing. Groups, . . . whether they be 3 shot, 5 shot, or 25 shot, . . . can only indicate where you shot that day, under those conditions. AND, . . . most people I've observed will "tweak" their sights that day, . . . and then the next time, . . . and then the next time, . . . searching in vain for their golden sight setting.
May God bless,
Dwight
You only shoot one shot per day.
You "call" that shot, after it leaves the barrel you make your best estimate of whether it was high, low, left, right, . . . and by how much.
You 100%, thoroughly clean the weapon after that shot: chamber, barrel,etc.
You log, written down in a log book: air temp, wind speed, direction, time of day, typical weather pattern name (fair, sunny, rainy, foggy, etc.)
You also log the ammo: bullet, powder, amount of powder, primer, etc.
After several months:
1. Your called shots will be "called" better
2. You will have a "dossier" of your capabilities with that rifle, that you can refer back to when you come up against the same conditions later on.
3. You will find out that you are a better shooter later than you were when you started.
I am in the process of starting this with my M1A loaded (waiting on some supplies to show up).
My personal reasoning for preferring this method is that I have seen too many people (I used to be one) who would just go out, . . . bust a box of ammo, or 2 or 3, . . . and then complain that it doesn't seem to help.
I want to become a better shooter, . . . and I'm going to try this method, . . . Good Lord willing. Groups, . . . whether they be 3 shot, 5 shot, or 25 shot, . . . can only indicate where you shot that day, under those conditions. AND, . . . most people I've observed will "tweak" their sights that day, . . . and then the next time, . . . and then the next time, . . . searching in vain for their golden sight setting.
May God bless,
Dwight
Last edited:
I practice a variety of things at the range, but try to shoot a few groups each time and keep records to see how I'm progressing (or regressing).
I may shoot 4 to 6 careful groups for the record and usually one or two of the groups will be thrown out for one reason or another. For handguns, I shoot 5 shot groups for my recordkeeping, but I may do higher round count groups on occasion if the mood takes me. For rifles, I usually shoot 3 shot groups.
It is certainly true that I get an exceptional group now and again, and I love it when that happens. But I wouldn't be very happy if I shot one really great group and all the others were bad. For example, when I'm shooting handguns, a group anything under 3" at 25 yards is cause for celebration, but I also expect that most of my carefully shot groups (with the guns that can manage it) will be around 4" or better with a full-size pistol and not much more than an inch or two larger than that for my compact carry gun.
In other words, shooting a 2" five shot group at 25 yards would be pretty encouraging to me, but not if all my other groups shot the same day under the same conditions measured 7" or 8". Under those circumstances, I'd consider the 2" group to be a happy coincidence and not evidence of shooting skill.
On the other hand, if during a particular range session I shot 5 groups and threw one out because it was 7" with a called flyer but all the others were under 4.5" in diameter with one group that ran 2.75", then I'd feel pretty good about my performance that day and would be more likely to consider the idea that the 2.75" may have been the result of good shooting
If I can't manage to keep most of my carefully shot 5 round groups at 25 yards down around 4" or so then I start working to determine what I'm doing wrong.
I would relax the accuracy requirements even more for a subcompact, pocket pistol and probably wouldn't even shoot it at 25 yards unless it demonstrated remarkable accuracy at closer ranges.
I may shoot 4 to 6 careful groups for the record and usually one or two of the groups will be thrown out for one reason or another. For handguns, I shoot 5 shot groups for my recordkeeping, but I may do higher round count groups on occasion if the mood takes me. For rifles, I usually shoot 3 shot groups.
It is certainly true that I get an exceptional group now and again, and I love it when that happens. But I wouldn't be very happy if I shot one really great group and all the others were bad. For example, when I'm shooting handguns, a group anything under 3" at 25 yards is cause for celebration, but I also expect that most of my carefully shot groups (with the guns that can manage it) will be around 4" or better with a full-size pistol and not much more than an inch or two larger than that for my compact carry gun.
In other words, shooting a 2" five shot group at 25 yards would be pretty encouraging to me, but not if all my other groups shot the same day under the same conditions measured 7" or 8". Under those circumstances, I'd consider the 2" group to be a happy coincidence and not evidence of shooting skill.
On the other hand, if during a particular range session I shot 5 groups and threw one out because it was 7" with a called flyer but all the others were under 4.5" in diameter with one group that ran 2.75", then I'd feel pretty good about my performance that day and would be more likely to consider the idea that the 2.75" may have been the result of good shooting
If I can't manage to keep most of my carefully shot 5 round groups at 25 yards down around 4" or so then I start working to determine what I'm doing wrong.
I would relax the accuracy requirements even more for a subcompact, pocket pistol and probably wouldn't even shoot it at 25 yards unless it demonstrated remarkable accuracy at closer ranges.
Hathcock's method will probably make someone who approaches it seriously and has good equipment a better rifle shot...but...
Before you can ever attempt to improve your shooting ability with that type of practice you must first know the mechanical limitation of your firearm and that requires shooting "groups" to verify and adjust your point of aim to the point of impact (center of the group). It would do no good to try to fire a single shot and call that shot unless you know for a demonstrated fact that the gun is capable of hitting your chosen mark every time and that any missed shots are the fault of the shooter and not just mechanical variation. I once had a rifle that wouldn't group any better than 6" at 100 yards...I didn't have it long but it would have been fruitless to attempt any kind of shooting improvement with that thing!
As for the OP's question about "bragging" groups and the number of shots fired...you can't just quit when you have a bragging group after x number of shots and not finish the group for fear of throwing a flyer. That's like cheating. When shooting for groups I choose the number of shots I am going to fire ahead of time and that is how many I shoot. It may be 3 (usually when sighting in a rifle) or 5 (usually for sighting in a pistol) or 10 (for a REAL test of mechanical accuracy). And it's OK to brag about an exceptionally tight group but unless you can repeat it several times then it's just a fluke and has to be taken for just that. Luckily, the occasional exceptionally large group can be treated the same way. Your gun's true mechanical potential is the average of several groups but who wants to brag about "average"
Before you can ever attempt to improve your shooting ability with that type of practice you must first know the mechanical limitation of your firearm and that requires shooting "groups" to verify and adjust your point of aim to the point of impact (center of the group). It would do no good to try to fire a single shot and call that shot unless you know for a demonstrated fact that the gun is capable of hitting your chosen mark every time and that any missed shots are the fault of the shooter and not just mechanical variation. I once had a rifle that wouldn't group any better than 6" at 100 yards...I didn't have it long but it would have been fruitless to attempt any kind of shooting improvement with that thing!
As for the OP's question about "bragging" groups and the number of shots fired...you can't just quit when you have a bragging group after x number of shots and not finish the group for fear of throwing a flyer. That's like cheating. When shooting for groups I choose the number of shots I am going to fire ahead of time and that is how many I shoot. It may be 3 (usually when sighting in a rifle) or 5 (usually for sighting in a pistol) or 10 (for a REAL test of mechanical accuracy). And it's OK to brag about an exceptionally tight group but unless you can repeat it several times then it's just a fluke and has to be taken for just that. Luckily, the occasional exceptionally large group can be treated the same way. Your gun's true mechanical potential is the average of several groups but who wants to brag about "average"
You put your finger on one of the major problems of using group size (i.e., maximum spread) as a measure of accuracy (precision, really, but that's another discussion). As is obvious, 1-shot groups will always give you the minimum group size, and as you add shots to the group it can never get smaller, only larger. For a single gun/load combination, even under controlled conditions, the larger the group size you use as your test of accuracy, the larger those groups will be. This is both conceptually and statistically unsatisfying.
A much better way to evaluate accuracy is to use the average deviation, which is simply the average distance your shots fall from the calculated "center" of the group. It does involve a little math, but only a little. One convenient way to do it is to use one of those targets that have 1-inch squares around an aiming point. After firing a number of shots - the actual number doesn't matter a great deal, but more is better and you should try to fire at least a half dozen or so - measure the distance of each shot from the center (aiming point) in terms of the x,y grid of squares. Thus each shot has an assigned coordinate in the x,y system. Shots to the left of center will have a negative "x" and shots below center will have a negative "y" - that's not a problem, but if you'd rather not work with negative coordinates you can choose an origin (0,0 point) below and to the left of all the shots, which will then all have positive coordinates. The results will be the same.
The group center in your x,y system is then calculated as the average of the x's and the average of the y's. The distance of each shot from that center is given by our old friend the Pythagorean Theorem as the square root of the (difference between the two x's squared plus the differences of the two y's squared). This is much easier than it may sound, especially if you can work in Excel. The average of all the distances in the group is the average deviation, which is your measure of accuracy.
This value is an inherent property of the gun/load combination, as well as the usual other factors, and is independent of the number of shots fired. As you increase the size of the group, the estimate improves and can become either smaller or larger. Also, one "flyer" (which should usually be included in the calculation, unless you know it's not representative, e.g., maybe you sneezed and squeezed that shot off accidentally) doesn't have as much of an effect on the average deviation as it would if you were measuring maximum spread. Assuming the center of your group is not exactly at the aiming point, the calculated actual center lets you know exactly how much you need to move the sights, whether you're interested in zeroing at that distance or want some known amount of holdover.
One slight disadvantage of this method is that it takes a bit of getting used to in terms of evaluating what's "good." We've all come to think of 1 MOA maximum spread as being a bit of benchmark for an accurate rifle, but that number holds no particular significance using this method.
This method is (somewhat) related to the military's Circular Error Probably (CEP) method of evaluating accuracy, a good discussion of which, including some useful tools, can be found here.
8MM Mauser
New member
Pretty good and shooting groups with pistols offhand. I can land a 2-3 group consistently from 25 yards with my Ruger MKII shooting pretty quickly. It opens up to 4-5 in rapid fire at the same range. At 50 yards it will stay on a paper plate. Not truly a "group" anymore.
With a scoped rifle I can manage a good 2-3 inch offhand group at 50 yards. I manage about the same from a rest or sitting position at 100 yards.
So I do ok, I don't shoot near often enough though and I usually have at least a bad group or two. Often with pistols it's the first group; with rifles it's the opposite, my groups usually open up as I go. Not sure why. Probably the fatigue of holding up the rifle I suppose.
With a scoped rifle I can manage a good 2-3 inch offhand group at 50 yards. I manage about the same from a rest or sitting position at 100 yards.
So I do ok, I don't shoot near often enough though and I usually have at least a bad group or two. Often with pistols it's the first group; with rifles it's the opposite, my groups usually open up as I go. Not sure why. Probably the fatigue of holding up the rifle I suppose.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I read somewhere that three shots is what the author claimed "most" experts deem optimal for testing rifles. For pistols, I shoot five-shot groups and, since I'm not as good as a Ransom rest, I discount the shot farthest from the group. Call it a flier or not, the result is that I'm measuring a four-shot group.
With revolvers, since each hole in the cylinder is bored separately, I shoot a group that's however many shots the revolver holds. If I notice that one hole always seems to be the "flier," I begin to suspect that the problem might lie in the gun rather than the shooter. Otherwise, if fliers are random, I discount the widest shot and measure however many are left (four or five, typically -- I have not yet tested any of the nine and ten shot .22s).
With revolvers, since each hole in the cylinder is bored separately, I shoot a group that's however many shots the revolver holds. If I notice that one hole always seems to be the "flier," I begin to suspect that the problem might lie in the gun rather than the shooter. Otherwise, if fliers are random, I discount the widest shot and measure however many are left (four or five, typically -- I have not yet tested any of the nine and ten shot .22s).
sigcurious
New member
I shoot 4 shot groups with my rifle. Then again it only holds 4.
With the cost of factory ammo these days, three shot groups are about the max I can afford, and not too many of those. If you are trying factory ammo for hunting use, threes will be sufficient, and they give you and your rifle the best chance to look good.
A series of five shot groups will always average larger than a series of three shot groups. Thus, fives give a better idea of the dispersion of the accuracy results when testing handloads. I know it is frustrating to put three in a cloverleaf and then have the fourth one stray, and then maybe the fifth, but we all live with it.
I compromise and use four-shot groups for ammo testing from the bench. Compared to fives, I use 20% less ammo, save 20% in time, and barrel heating is not as much of a problem in the good ol' summertime. I don't think I lose much in comparison with five-shot testing.
McShooty's Rule: "There is always a flyer." If you shoot a two-shot group, one of them is a flyer. Seriously, flyers are useful. They tip you off when your rifle, loads, or bench technique are not quite up to snuff.
A series of five shot groups will always average larger than a series of three shot groups. Thus, fives give a better idea of the dispersion of the accuracy results when testing handloads. I know it is frustrating to put three in a cloverleaf and then have the fourth one stray, and then maybe the fifth, but we all live with it.
I compromise and use four-shot groups for ammo testing from the bench. Compared to fives, I use 20% less ammo, save 20% in time, and barrel heating is not as much of a problem in the good ol' summertime. I don't think I lose much in comparison with five-shot testing.
McShooty's Rule: "There is always a flyer." If you shoot a two-shot group, one of them is a flyer. Seriously, flyers are useful. They tip you off when your rifle, loads, or bench technique are not quite up to snuff.
I'm different when it comes to groups. Most people shoot a series of groups, lets say 10 5 shot groups. They pick the best of the 10 and say their rifle shoots this X group.
I don't think so. Shoot 10 5 shot groups and be honest. Take the largest group. That is what your gun/ammo/shooter is capable of.
Better yet, shoot one 50 shot group and use it as a true measure.
I don't think so. Shoot 10 5 shot groups and be honest. Take the largest group. That is what your gun/ammo/shooter is capable of.
Better yet, shoot one 50 shot group and use it as a true measure.
Groups are things I read about on the Internet. In my personal shooting, I rarely shoot for groups. I typically load up 10 rounds at a time in my pistol mags, aim for center, and shoot with reasonable speed. Having the attention span of a cocunut, I don't have the patience required to be a group shooter.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
MOA
I shoot at a circle painted red from 100 yards away. If I miss the circle by 3", it goes down as '3MOA'. If I miss the circle by 2", it goes down in the book as '2MOA'
The circle is 37 inches across.
I shoot at a circle painted red from 100 yards away. If I miss the circle by 3", it goes down as '3MOA'. If I miss the circle by 2", it goes down in the book as '2MOA'
The circle is 37 inches across.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I decided long ago that most of the .25 to .5MOA groups I have seen posted are the latter.
If you are firing 500 rounds a week and move targets every three shots, as I imagine some serious shooters do, then it really isn't too impressive to get a few.