Butch Lambert
Active member
I agree with Boyd. The rifle will not agg .250 and that does not mean that it is a POS. It is just in a different game.
Butch
Butch
B
beemanbeme
Guest
Many folks are not interested in the esoteric, single application of a bench gun but are interested in ways to enhance the accuracy of their sporting rifles through precision loading or handling or aftermarket alterations that one may do himself. I think you folks call it "bubbaizing". 
If we are so resistant to accuracy tips, why do you think so many of us lurked in BRC that Wilbur set us up our own room?? If you were to visit some of the other forums and go in their brass prep rooms and read some of the esoteric things that are suggested for hunting brass you would know that your tips are not being ignored.
Mr Murphy discovered that changing bullet jump could affect accuracy and shared that information with us in the FACTORY RIFLE room. And posted a picture. That information was quickly lost because his group was not measured correctly. And that info was quickly buried under the information that no mere box gun could possibly agg (I don't recall that he said anything about aggs) .250.
FWIW, at many of the matches I've attended, quite a few of the high dollar bench guns can't acchive .250 aggs neither.
If we are so resistant to accuracy tips, why do you think so many of us lurked in BRC that Wilbur set us up our own room?? If you were to visit some of the other forums and go in their brass prep rooms and read some of the esoteric things that are suggested for hunting brass you would know that your tips are not being ignored.
Mr Murphy discovered that changing bullet jump could affect accuracy and shared that information with us in the FACTORY RIFLE room. And posted a picture. That information was quickly lost because his group was not measured correctly. And that info was quickly buried under the information that no mere box gun could possibly agg (I don't recall that he said anything about aggs) .250.
FWIW, at many of the matches I've attended, quite a few of the high dollar bench guns can't acchive .250 aggs neither.
2
.25shooter
Guest
to bemanbeme
I have the outmost respect for people like Mr. Murphy who like to accurize their factory rifles them selves and tune them as they can. That is the first step in the way of wanting a Benchrest rifle and very useful step in the learning prosess of shooting Benchrest and loading for it. That is the road I went long ago. Just the fact that he understood that he had outgrown his rifles accuracy potential and that he took all the advise as they were intended that is in good faith tells me that he realizes that no amount of bullet weighing brass sorting priming pocket reaming and etc. will make a factory rifle competitive in Benchrest.
Not everyone has the time or money to invest in a Benchrest rifle and compeat in Benchrest. There is nothing wrong with that or using what you have and having fun. That will not change the fact that the fastest and least expensive way to learn to shoot Benchrest is to sell a factory rifle one has and buy a used Benchrest rifle on a good custom action. It is less costly in the long run than trying to change what you got into something it never will be.
As for Mr Murphy one additional advice would be to go to a benchrest match talk to the people there. I am sure some competitor would be glad to allow you to shot one group from his rifle, and then to deside if this was somthing you are interested in. If not I just wish you a good shooting and fun time with your current setup.
I have the outmost respect for people like Mr. Murphy who like to accurize their factory rifles them selves and tune them as they can. That is the first step in the way of wanting a Benchrest rifle and very useful step in the learning prosess of shooting Benchrest and loading for it. That is the road I went long ago. Just the fact that he understood that he had outgrown his rifles accuracy potential and that he took all the advise as they were intended that is in good faith tells me that he realizes that no amount of bullet weighing brass sorting priming pocket reaming and etc. will make a factory rifle competitive in Benchrest.
Not everyone has the time or money to invest in a Benchrest rifle and compeat in Benchrest. There is nothing wrong with that or using what you have and having fun. That will not change the fact that the fastest and least expensive way to learn to shoot Benchrest is to sell a factory rifle one has and buy a used Benchrest rifle on a good custom action. It is less costly in the long run than trying to change what you got into something it never will be.
As for Mr Murphy one additional advice would be to go to a benchrest match talk to the people there. I am sure some competitor would be glad to allow you to shot one group from his rifle, and then to deside if this was somthing you are interested in. If not I just wish you a good shooting and fun time with your current setup.
J
jaybic
Guest
Probably what a lot of fellas, myself included should try and figure out how to turn a full blown bench gun into a tack driving hunting rifle rather than vice versa.
Maybe its not a "build" but a "disassembly" taking a 10.5 lv gun and turning down, cutting off and crowning a high dollar match grade barrel into a sporter weight barrel, remove the singleshot follower and put bottom metal in, trade the stock for a nice glass bedded boyds thumbhole complete with sling swivels and trade the 2oz jewell for a hunting grade Jewell/Timney/Shilen.
Toss the 45x Leupy for a good VX 3 in 3.5x10x40 and your ready to go hunting with a rifle that had all the accuracy you could possibly need from a hunting rifle and MAYBE, get those aggs that you want at the .250 mark.
Is this possible other than the obvious reason not to?(Cost) It also seems like buying a brand new Porsche and turning it into a demo car.
It would go along ways on this site towards not irritating the real Benchrest guys with the "my factory rifle will.....ect..ect...all day long".
No offense intended to anyone. I would really like to know what I would end up with if I took a full blown .250 agg certifed bench gun and turned it into my walking hunting rifle. If not, we need to stop comparing apples to oranges as they are not the same nor were they ever intended to be.
Thanks fellas,
jamie
Maybe its not a "build" but a "disassembly" taking a 10.5 lv gun and turning down, cutting off and crowning a high dollar match grade barrel into a sporter weight barrel, remove the singleshot follower and put bottom metal in, trade the stock for a nice glass bedded boyds thumbhole complete with sling swivels and trade the 2oz jewell for a hunting grade Jewell/Timney/Shilen.
Toss the 45x Leupy for a good VX 3 in 3.5x10x40 and your ready to go hunting with a rifle that had all the accuracy you could possibly need from a hunting rifle and MAYBE, get those aggs that you want at the .250 mark.
Is this possible other than the obvious reason not to?(Cost) It also seems like buying a brand new Porsche and turning it into a demo car.
It would go along ways on this site towards not irritating the real Benchrest guys with the "my factory rifle will.....ect..ect...all day long".
No offense intended to anyone. I would really like to know what I would end up with if I took a full blown .250 agg certifed bench gun and turned it into my walking hunting rifle. If not, we need to stop comparing apples to oranges as they are not the same nor were they ever intended to be.
Thanks fellas,
jamie
Last edited by a moderator:
Boyd Allen
Active member
Generally speaking, short range Benchrest calibers are not suitable for deer hunting. This is not to say that it can not be done. However, rather than tell you how to ruin a perfectly good benchrest rifle, why don't you tell us how light a caliber that you can live with, and ask what in that range can be built to achieve maximum accuracy utilizing as much from Benchrest as is practical?
J
jaybic
Guest
I wonder why it sounds so much better when you say it?
Yes, that is what I was trying to say I guess.
For me, it would be some sort of hyper-accurate .22 cal(22ppc or even a 6ppc) I guess. My primary use would be coyote hunting and I have several 22-250 so something along this line.
I was just trying to be a bit broad and now that you say so, your probably correct in your deer hunting assesment.
Just to be sure there is no confusion, I did not post this to by cynical or start an arguement what so ever. It was simply and idea that I had that rather that get the usual feed back of "scrap it and build up" I am just wondering if it is possible to take that bench gun that has all that inherent accuracy and modify it and put it on a diet to become a hunting rifle that you could take to a match.
Maybe even the best BAT/Stiller/Surgeon/Farley.....what ever action.... would lose its edge with some of the Benchrest bells and whistles removed. I honestly dont know and am just trying to educate myself and perhaps a few others in the Factory Rifle room.
I have thought about using a Stiller Predator repeater and a good barrel to make my ultimate lightweight hunting rifle without giving up any more bench grade accuracy than I have to. Afterall, thats what most of the poster here are about anyway, "how can I make my factory gun shoot bench good?"
Thanks again for any insight.
Jamie
P.s. has anyone ever done/seen/heard of anyone taking one of the super-bench grade actions and screwing on a bunch of factory parts/barrel/stock/trigger and seeing just how much better it is. Again just curious if it had ever been tried. That would certainly end most arguements on the matter I would think.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say I guess.
For me, it would be some sort of hyper-accurate .22 cal(22ppc or even a 6ppc) I guess. My primary use would be coyote hunting and I have several 22-250 so something along this line.
I was just trying to be a bit broad and now that you say so, your probably correct in your deer hunting assesment.
Just to be sure there is no confusion, I did not post this to by cynical or start an arguement what so ever. It was simply and idea that I had that rather that get the usual feed back of "scrap it and build up" I am just wondering if it is possible to take that bench gun that has all that inherent accuracy and modify it and put it on a diet to become a hunting rifle that you could take to a match.
Maybe even the best BAT/Stiller/Surgeon/Farley.....what ever action.... would lose its edge with some of the Benchrest bells and whistles removed. I honestly dont know and am just trying to educate myself and perhaps a few others in the Factory Rifle room.
I have thought about using a Stiller Predator repeater and a good barrel to make my ultimate lightweight hunting rifle without giving up any more bench grade accuracy than I have to. Afterall, thats what most of the poster here are about anyway, "how can I make my factory gun shoot bench good?"
Thanks again for any insight.
Jamie
P.s. has anyone ever done/seen/heard of anyone taking one of the super-bench grade actions and screwing on a bunch of factory parts/barrel/stock/trigger and seeing just how much better it is. Again just curious if it had ever been tried. That would certainly end most arguements on the matter I would think.
DR4NRA
New member
Many folks are not interested in the esoteric, single application of a bench gun but are interested in ways to enhance the accuracy of their sporting rifles through precision loading or handling or aftermarket alterations that one may do himself. I think you folks call it "bubbaizing".
If we are so resistant to accuracy tips, why do you think so many of us lurked in BRC that Wilbur set us up our own room?? If you were to visit some of the other forums and go in their brass prep rooms and read some of the esoteric things that are suggested for hunting brass you would know that your tips are not being ignored.
Mr Murphy discovered that changing bullet jump could affect accuracy and shared that information with us in the FACTORY RIFLE room. And posted a picture. That information was quickly lost because his group was not measured correctly. And that info was quickly buried under the information that no mere box gun could possibly agg (I don't recall that he said anything about aggs) .250.
FWIW, at many of the matches I've attended, quite a few of the high dollar bench guns can't acchive .250 aggs neither.
I wouldnt really call it Bubbaizing, although it still could be a good term for it
but in this forum, Having a factory rifle that has been tuned, and tested to the point where the shooter has extreme confidence that out of a cold barrel, thier first shot at 100, 200 or 300 yards is going to hit the mark. This is beyond the realm of pure benchresters, Jackie himself has admitted to this.But it does seem that if someone posts a group instead of an attaboy for a factory rifle doing that well, we have gotten nothing but aggs, and group measurement.
Murphy that was a good group, and i found that your perspective on bullet jump mirrored mine. ATTABOY Well done.
sorry to hear you have to un- retire I would rather have a rifle that would drop 5 deer or any other edible creature with 5 shots, than I would one that aggs .1 on paper, because I havent found a good recipe for cooking & eating rifle targets yet, and thats all a bench gun is good, for nothing else , just small holes in paper
DR
M
murphy
Guest
To All Concernend Parties.
Well I certainly have got people talking to one other, and that I believe is how change and innovation happen. What about trying to knock off the PPC with something with better sectional density in say 204 Ruger bore size!
Well I certainly have got people talking to one other, and that I believe is how change and innovation happen. What about trying to knock off the PPC with something with better sectional density in say 204 Ruger bore size!
T
tobybradshaw
Guest
That's because rifle accuracy isn't (properly) measured by a single group, but by its aggregate accuracy. If I take a pile of pennies and toss each one ten times, eventually I will find a penny that comes up heads 10 times in a row. Is there anything special about that penny? Should I get an "attaboy" for finding it?
There's nothing at all wrong with tuning factory rifles. A good factory rifle is all anyone needs for practical hunting. But if you post to a benchrest-oriented audience (even in the factory forum) you can expect a benchrest perspective on rifle accuracy. And nobody knows, or cares, more about rifle accuracy than competitive benchrest shooters.
It is human nature to assume that one's smallest group is representative of the rifle's potential. But it is not representative -- it is (in all likelihood) a statistical fluke, and hence not too interesting to serious rifle cranks.
Here is a typical exchange from a few years ago: http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/boss.html. And -- surprise, surprise -- the guy with his 7mm Mag never showed up to take my money.
Toby Bradshaw
baywingdb@comcast.net
B
beemanbeme
Guest
Using that rationale, there should be no matches won nor trophies given nor records recorded since on any given day that one shooter out shoot a field of competitors was a fluke. He happened to pick up the right penny at the right time.
If, on some fine day, you shoot a .1, be sure and tell everyone that it was a fluke and burn the target.
If, on some fine day, you shoot a .1, be sure and tell everyone that it was a fluke and burn the target.
Boyd Allen
Active member
What we have here is a spirited defense of the "wallet group". In my time, I have proudly carried around many of these. However, as I am sure that you know, many who post on these boards subscribe to a different standard. At matches there are small group listings and records, as well as national records for more than one sanctioning body, however, the overall winner of any given event is the shooter that has the smallest average group size, for all yardages and rifle classes contested. Of course I am speaking of group and not score. If, on the other hand, you don't shoot competition, then subscribe to any standard that pleases you. It is, after all, your hobby. Enjoy it. I would never denigrate someones wallet group. Just don't tell me that your factory rifle shoots them "all day long", and we will get along just fine.
T
tobybradshaw
Guest
Peruse a few BR tournament results and see how often the shooter with the smallest group is also the yardage, event, or multi-gun winner. [I can save you the suspense -- the answer is "not too often."] The larger the sample size (number of groups), the more statisical power there is to discriminate among outcomes. One group is defined by just two shots, and that is a very small sample size.
If, on some fine day, you shoot a .1, be sure and tell everyone that it was a fluke and burn the target.
I have shot in the zeros in registered benchrest competition, and I have the little plaques to show for them.
But I harbor no illusions that my rifle (or me) could agg in the zeros. Those small groups were just the left-hand tail of a statistical distribution. Fun, but not especially informative by themselves.Here's my smallest groups in practice. The 0.029 dot is at 100yd, and the "big" group (0.365) is at 300. That's what a real BR rifle can do -- occasionally.
Toby Bradshaw
baywingdb@comcast.net
Attachments
B
beemanbeme
Guest
Uh Toby, what you said agrees with what I said. You merely said its okay for you "serious competitors" to laugh and giggle and high five and give out plaques when the cluster of flukes fall to you. You said the fellow that happens to shoot the very smallest group gets a plaque. Not as big a one as the fellow that has several flukes come together at one time --as you said, given enough pennies, you could pick up 10 in a row that was heads, or enough monkeys and enough typewriters, etc, etc-- but if some poor fellow shoots a "wallet group" with old trusty rusty and then makes the mistake of posting it in here, he is taken to school, sometimes very rudely and harshly, because the group isn't properly measured and/or he cannot repeat the feat every time he sits down at the bench and/or it was shot with a (gasp, shudder) box gun.
Is it an insecurity thing with you guys? You need this constant self reinforcement of "mine is bigger and better than your's, neener, neener, neener" ? I know some folks will get really pissed at that but it was meant as a joke.
Is it an insecurity thing with you guys? You need this constant self reinforcement of "mine is bigger and better than your's, neener, neener, neener" ? I know some folks will get really pissed at that but it was meant as a joke.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Go shoot a Benchrest match, you may have more respect for those that win things at them. Making light of difficult accomplishments and then saying that you are joking is a little thin. Try duplicating what you make light of.
C
chisqr
Guest
Murphy: I applaude your effort at doing some systematic testing.
Assume that under the same conditions with this rifle you could get an average group of 0.55". (Middle of the 0.500" and 0.600" range that has been suggested.)
Assume that the average group is round. (This makes things a good bit more simple.)
Then, shooting only for group size, the odds of shooting 3 shots and getting a 0.159" group would be about 1 in 120; less than 1 in 14000 to do it twice in a row.
If you are shooting for accuracy and group size then the chance of shooting 3 shots into a 0.159" dia. circle centered on the actual point of aim would be about 1 in 813, and less than 1 in 660000 to do it twice in a row.
Now just how reliable these odds are depends on how close the two assumptions are to reality. But this just reinforces the idea that either you just saw something pretty rare, or the conventional wisdom here about the likely average capability of the rifle is wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with the conventional wisdom being correct here, but what the heck, if you do some more testing you can find out for sure for yourself, and you might discover something useful in the process.
Just be sure not to base any conclusions entirely on one or two groups since it's easy for anyone to trick themselves. Even with 5 shot groups for a rifle that averages 0.550", and nothing changing, just random chance will give you groups less than 0.45" for about 1 out of 6 groups and more than 0.65" for about 1 out of 5 groups.
Just to be clear, I'm just trying to give some specific answers related to Murphy's question, nothing else.
Assume that under the same conditions with this rifle you could get an average group of 0.55". (Middle of the 0.500" and 0.600" range that has been suggested.)
Assume that the average group is round. (This makes things a good bit more simple.)
Then, shooting only for group size, the odds of shooting 3 shots and getting a 0.159" group would be about 1 in 120; less than 1 in 14000 to do it twice in a row.
If you are shooting for accuracy and group size then the chance of shooting 3 shots into a 0.159" dia. circle centered on the actual point of aim would be about 1 in 813, and less than 1 in 660000 to do it twice in a row.
Now just how reliable these odds are depends on how close the two assumptions are to reality. But this just reinforces the idea that either you just saw something pretty rare, or the conventional wisdom here about the likely average capability of the rifle is wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with the conventional wisdom being correct here, but what the heck, if you do some more testing you can find out for sure for yourself, and you might discover something useful in the process.
Just be sure not to base any conclusions entirely on one or two groups since it's easy for anyone to trick themselves. Even with 5 shot groups for a rifle that averages 0.550", and nothing changing, just random chance will give you groups less than 0.45" for about 1 out of 6 groups and more than 0.65" for about 1 out of 5 groups.
Just to be clear, I'm just trying to give some specific answers related to Murphy's question, nothing else.
S
steyrl
Guest
I have been told 223Rem is a calibre that likes the projectles seated a fair bit of the lands. Must admit I've not tried much further than 0.020" of the lands but I might load up some rounds and see how they go; "ya never know".
Regs,
Bill Dyer
Regs,
Bill Dyer
T
tobybradshaw
Guest
... but if some poor fellow shoots a "wallet group" with old trusty rusty and then makes the mistake of posting it in here, he is taken to school, sometimes very rudely and harshly, because the group isn't properly measured and/or he cannot repeat the feat every time he sits down at the bench and/or it was shot with a (gasp, shudder) box gun.
Nobody has said anything like that in this thread. What some of us are saying is that load development/testing can't be done (meaningfully) with a single group for each test condition, which is how this thread started.
I've done a lot of competitive shooting in factory class. At my club the format was 2 record shots at each of 5 bulls on the 200yd hunter BR target. Here's what my M700 .222 could do (see photo) if steered correctly. Note the sighter target, which shows how much the conditions affected POI, and how much I was having to hold off to put shots in the 10-ring. [Also note the xfire on target 3 -- the guy next to me was shooting a .308.]
You can see from the target that I have pairs of shots touching, but if all 10 record shots were superimposed the group would not be one ragged hole, because this rifle is simply not capable of doing that on a regular basis at 200yd. My dedicated BR rifles are capable of one hole groups at 200. But for either type of rifle, it takes many groups to really distinguish between loads (or any other factors, like bag firmness) affecting group size. One group is essentially meaningless, as chisqr has explained.
Toby Bradshaw
baywingdb@comcast.net
Attachments
B
beemanbeme
Guest
Boyd Allen, congratulations on being the first one to get pissed. Had you properly read my post, you would have realized that I was merely paraphrasing what Toby had said. I was not making light of the accomplishments but of the folks that take themselves too serious.
Toby, I've shot a bit of factory --my best is a .111 in competition. I do not have the target nor the plaque--and I was awake in Stat class in college. Point in fact, however, you have to start somewhere. You have to shoot one good group before you can repeat it, etc.
Toby, I've shot a bit of factory --my best is a .111 in competition. I do not have the target nor the plaque--and I was awake in Stat class in college. Point in fact, however, you have to start somewhere. You have to shoot one good group before you can repeat it, etc.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Slightly irritated yes, pissed no...Better to quote and respond that mis-restate/exaggerate to make arguing your point easier, but then you would drastically reduce the potential for stirring things up, which seems to be high on your list of priorities.
Several of us have stated, that in our opinions, the accuracy of a rifle, or load is best characterized by looking a the larger data sample that an average of several groups affords. Obviously, as I said in my first post, Murphy is to be congratulated on his stick-to-itiveness (sp?) for continuing farther and farther back from the rifling, well beyond what anyone else in my experience has tried, and thanked for bringing us an interesting data point. I may in fact try the experiment myself, with one of my factory rifles, just in case there is a happy surprise lurking further back.
In the past, I have played around with jumping my 6PPC, and was able to shoot a mid two five shot group with .060 jump. I found that groups shot with jumped bullets ,in that rifle, were more symmetrical and had fewer surprise shots, but would never get into the smallest twos or ones that I produced on the same day with bullets seated into the rifling. Looking back, I might have done better to have done the testing over a chronograph. If Jim Borden is correct in thinking that accuracy nodes are velocity specific, I may have missed the boat holding my powder charge constant. If I do it again I will probably find an accurate load at my usual seating depth, and then test various powder charges at each of several other seating depths, until matching velocities are achieved. If Jim is correct, years of published data may be irrelevant, and most shooters' test procedures may be seriously flawed.
Several of us have stated, that in our opinions, the accuracy of a rifle, or load is best characterized by looking a the larger data sample that an average of several groups affords. Obviously, as I said in my first post, Murphy is to be congratulated on his stick-to-itiveness (sp?) for continuing farther and farther back from the rifling, well beyond what anyone else in my experience has tried, and thanked for bringing us an interesting data point. I may in fact try the experiment myself, with one of my factory rifles, just in case there is a happy surprise lurking further back.
In the past, I have played around with jumping my 6PPC, and was able to shoot a mid two five shot group with .060 jump. I found that groups shot with jumped bullets ,in that rifle, were more symmetrical and had fewer surprise shots, but would never get into the smallest twos or ones that I produced on the same day with bullets seated into the rifling. Looking back, I might have done better to have done the testing over a chronograph. If Jim Borden is correct in thinking that accuracy nodes are velocity specific, I may have missed the boat holding my powder charge constant. If I do it again I will probably find an accurate load at my usual seating depth, and then test various powder charges at each of several other seating depths, until matching velocities are achieved. If Jim is correct, years of published data may be irrelevant, and most shooters' test procedures may be seriously flawed.
Last edited:
M
murphy
Guest
To Boyd Allen
Not long ago I tuned a 308 Win, using the same method that I have described for my 223 and there is definately an underlying truth in there somewhere. When sorted out the 308 started to print all of its groups very close to the same point of impact, so close in fact that I have four pet loads from 110g to 165g that I can use without altering the scope. Out of those four loads there is no noticable change in the horizontal plane and a max of about 11/2" in the vertical. They don't all shoot close to or far away from the lands, but the variation in seating depth with this one rifle with different loads can be more than one might expect. Reguards Murphy.
Not long ago I tuned a 308 Win, using the same method that I have described for my 223 and there is definately an underlying truth in there somewhere. When sorted out the 308 started to print all of its groups very close to the same point of impact, so close in fact that I have four pet loads from 110g to 165g that I can use without altering the scope. Out of those four loads there is no noticable change in the horizontal plane and a max of about 11/2" in the vertical. They don't all shoot close to or far away from the lands, but the variation in seating depth with this one rifle with different loads can be more than one might expect. Reguards Murphy.