message board home
Next
8/27/2014 10:19:15 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: Guns/General Subject: Shooting Groups Msg# 898018
|
||||||
| First, "off in the wilderness" is a loaded phrase, and hardly accurate. Groups are on the target and generally near the aiming point, so throw out that non-descriptive term. Next, being able to shoot a group does show that the shooter can use the sighting system, or a good group would not be possible, so throw out that criticism. Your entire beef is that the shooter hasn't made an adjustment to bring the point of impact to coincide with point of aim, which may or may not matter to him. As Dale said, in benchrest, they are purposely kept apart so seeing the bullet holes doesn't distract the shooter. In my case, my old military rifles shoot extra high at 100 yards. Short of filing the sights which I'm not going to do on a 100 year old collectible rifle, I aim for the six o'clock on an eight inch bull and am very happy with small groups just above the bull in the white. Does this mean I can't shoot? Does this mean my endeavor is pointless? Of course not. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: I said: all a small group off in the wilderness means is that the shooter bought or built a consistent load that his gun likes. It doesn't tell us if he understands the ballistic path of the load's bullet, if he can read and compensate for distance and wind, or even if he knows how to operate the gun's sighting system. Those things (which some might argue are more difficult than just coming up with a load the gun likes) are not in evidence. You said: You completely ignore shooter skill, which sometimes is the goal. Not every shooting endeavor must have as its ultimate goal "killing zombies." If we've seen a tight group off somewhere on the target we know the shooter has the skill to shoot one. What we don't know is why the group isn't on target. Reading and compensating for wind and distance and operating a gun's sighting system are shooter skills that are at least (if not more) important and a group off in the wilderness doesn't show evidence of them. I don't think that a group that shows only the half of those skills which enables you to shoot tight groups is truly worth bragging about. I see accuracy as the most important, number one goal and hitting your target as the object of the invention and evolution of firearms. I don't think I ignored shooter skill at all, and when you seemed to say that some shooter skill other than hitting your target was an acceptable goal for a shooting endeavor I was disagreeing. I feel that's simply why guns exist and learned shooting skills are all designed to lead shooters to that purpose. I could be wrong, but I know that's why I own the guns I shoot... |
