? for group scorers

goodgrouper

tryingtobeabettergrouper
Since there ain't much going on here other than people arguing over how to grow a sport that is by it's very nature, a small niche, and never going to attract the numbers that a less technical sport will, I'll throw out a few questions that have been buggin' me for awhile.

In group shooting, every scoring official is required by law to have a Sweaney type measuring tool or something similar. And they are instructed to check a single sighter hole if there is any question on very small groups. And we have all heard about looking at bullet holes during the tuning process for elliptical shapes, etc., etc.. Further more, we've probably all measured our own holes and noticed that they are smaller than .243" yet, we know the bullet that went through there is .243" or larger.

So, my questions are these:
How large is the OD of the 6mm circle in the measuring tool supposed to be? If it is smaller than .243, how was that number determined?
Is there some regulatory body that verifies that all of these tools are the same everywhere in the country? Nobody's 6mm circle is slightly bigger than somebody else's thus affecting the group score?
And what do the scorers do when somebody's sighter hole doesn't come close to fitting the stencil circle? Why do we care what size hole the bullet punched if we know what the diameter of the bullet really was within a half thou or so?
How do the scorers deal with multiple target frame ranges where some (if not all) of the frames are not perfectly perpendicular to the bench in front of them?
Wouldn't it be a slight advantage to a shooter who's frame is perpendicular vs. some guy that has to shoot slightly across his bench at an angle at a frame that was also out of square?

I have checked squareness on every range I've been to (not much to do at night when you're camping alone at the range!) and I've only seen two or three frames that were perfectly perpendicular to the benches both left and right and up and down or top to bottom. Some folks claim to be able to tune their gun simply by bullet hole shapes alone. Well, at my home range, every bullet looks like it went thru elliptically no matter what the tune because the frames and frame material are angled horizontally and vertically.
What say you?
 
Last edited:
Smallest group I have shot to date was in a tuning session with a 30 Cal HBR rifle that measured, as exact as I could measure,.306 outside to outside of the hole. The bullets all went straight through. I would agree that most of the holes are eliptical and I think it is from bullets trying to stay headed into the wind. Some will likely say bad jackets or cores or dies or whatever but who can say once the bullet is in the berm?
 
I say you are staying up too late at night and need to get into town and have a few beers...everything comes out square them...even the holes!

Jim
 
I can't see where reticule size would have any effect on scoring groups but that's an interesting observation re targets being angled to the shooter. Not all ranges I've been to are spaced parallel and perpendicular to shooting positions, several I've seen have had the targets clumped into a smaller area to simplify the backer mechanism. I was planning on setting up my range this way so that all the target frames could be under cover in a 20ft wide area while the shooting area is about 85ft wide...... thanks to you I'll now rethink the setup. Probably end up with a convex parabolic arrangement of the targets.


al
 
I can't see where reticule size would have any effect on scoring groups
al

Lets say the 6mm reticle circle in my tool is .230" at the i.d. and your tool's is .235". Groups shot at my range would be routinely measured bigger on average than yours.
 
Lets say the 6mm reticle circle in my tool is .230" at the i.d. and your tool's is .235". Groups shot at my range would be routinely measured bigger on average than yours.

I can't see how since the idea is to center the circles. Day to day the holes in the paper vary in size (not to mention that a 4th or 5th bullet just brushing the edge of a hole in the paper will probably cut a different semi-circle than the first bullet did??) and all's one can do is center on a few open holes and guess the offset on the groups. IMO operator error will swamp the difference between a thou or two difference in reticule circle size (one side). I DO understand what you're saying, but since the measurer is always setting one semi-circle relative to another, as opposed to actually lining up absolutes, there will always be estimation involved in finding the side of the group.

I don't envy the scoring committee...... :( .......... small groups suck to measure. Sometimes the smallest looking groups measure bigger.

al
 
I can't see how since the idea is to center the circles. Day to day the holes in the paper vary in size (not to mention that a 4th or 5th bullet just brushing the edge of a hole in the paper will probably cut a different semi-circle than the first bullet did??) and all's one can do is center on a few open holes and guess the offset on the groups. IMO operator error will swamp the difference between a thou or two difference in reticule circle size (one side). I DO understand what you're saying, but since the measurer is always setting one semi-circle relative to another, as opposed to actually lining up absolutes, there will always be estimation involved in finding the side of the group.

I don't envy the scoring committee...... :( .......... small groups suck to measure. Sometimes the smallest looking groups measure bigger.

al

Al is 100% correct and his comments bare repeating since the majority of shooters may not be aware of all these, and other, error producing variables that make measuring a group "exactly" impossible.

Landy
 
I can't see how since the idea is to center the circles. Day to day the holes in the paper vary in size (not to mention that a 4th or 5th bullet just brushing the edge of a hole in the paper will probably cut a different semi-circle than the first bullet did??) and all's one can do is center on a few open holes and guess the offset on the groups. IMO operator error will swamp the difference between a thou or two difference in reticule circle size (one side). I DO understand what you're saying, but since the measurer is always setting one semi-circle relative to another, as opposed to actually lining up absolutes, there will always be estimation involved in finding the side of the group.

I don't envy the scoring committee...... :( .......... small groups suck to measure. Sometimes the smallest looking groups measure bigger.

al

Yes, absolutely. That's my whole point, that the holes vary in size and shape from group to group and from bench to bench and frame to frame. The scorers are told to look at a single hole in the sighter to help them "gauge" what the size of the hole should be in the record portion. But that hole might not fit the reticle. Then throw in operator error, as you mentioned, and possible reticle size variance, and presto.......we've got variations. Perhaps this is why so many targets are sent to the records committee and come back with the sad news that they didn't beat the world records? I just think it strange that we make such a fuss to certify our scales for weigh in, but there doesn't seem to be the same attention paid to this part of our game.
 
Back
Top