Range reports: Whatcha do this week?

For what it's worth I found a decent write up on .308 M80 ammo lots and their performance. The military required 145gr-150gr, 10in groups at 600, so around 1.5moa with an SD -/+ 30. So allot of those low end .308 fall into this category.

http://www.snipercentral.com/m80-ammo-comparison-test/


I really hate tests that do 3 round group tests. To add to this barrel or firearms manufacturers that do as well.

Not sure if you opened any of the above links but imo that should be the standard. Obviously not everyone can go that in depth but the large test groups, overlay, etc.

Example - Pmc x-tac
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?170058-Range-Report-PMC-62-Grain-X-TAC

Or at the very least 5 round groups.

With 3 round groups that's how you end up with shit like this

Avg
1.194″
Best
.290″

Avg
2.077″
Best
.576″
 
I really hate tests that do 3 round group tests. To add to this barrel or firearms manufacturers that do as well.

Not sure if you opened any of the above links but imo that should be the standard. Obviously not everyone can go that in depth but the large test groups, overlay, etc.

Example - Pmc x-tac
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?170058-Range-Report-PMC-62-Grain-X-TAC

Or at the very least 5 round groups.

With 3 round groups that's how you end up with shit like this

Avg
1.194″
Best
.290″

Avg
2.077″
Best
.576″

I believe 5 round groups are a test of the shooter as much as the equipment. Unfortunately many shooters cannot hold a solid 5 round group with consistency, myself included. I personally prefer 3 round groups for testing handloads new lots, barrels ECT. I believe most shooters are able to hold a better group with 3 rounds. There's even an argument for a 2 round group - which is what I shot to confirm zero before a match. Assuming the impacts are within tolerance.

When testing these guys all use a chrono, if you get a 40sd spread on one round, and see an outlier on paper, it should be noted but that can then be related as the performance of the ammo.

Definitely reasons for both, Bryan Litz has a chapter on it in one of his books. Which I'd use right now but sadly I'm in the box.


Edit: that's a very well done test, very deliberate approach.
 
Last edited:
I believe 5 round groups are a test of the shooter as much as the equipment. Unfortunately many shooters cannot hold a solid 5 round group with consistency, myself included. I personally prefer 3 round groups for testing handloads new lots, barrels ECT. I believe most shooters are able to hold a better group with 3 rounds. There's even an argument for a 2 round group - which is what I shot to confirm zero before a match. Assuming the impacts are within tolerance.

When testing these guys all use a chrono, if you get a 40sd spread on one round, and see an outlier on paper, it should be noted but that can then be related as the performance of the ammo.

Definitely reasons for both, Bryan Litz has a chapter on it in one of his books. Which I'd use right now but sadly I'm in the box.

Well yeah the shooter has to do their part but at the same time small sample sizes is a poor indication of performance imo.

Fps is not the only thing that can have an effect on accuracy. Seating, the bullet itself as in jacket uniformity, weight & length consistency, design, case, etc all play a role. Also looking at their test the rounds with the best ES and SD weren't the best performers which goes to my point above.

Example: fps, sd, es, avg, best

S&B 2782 fps 8.65 fps 27 fps 1.917″ 1.604″

Win 2777 fps 59.41 fps 171 fps 1.340″ .953″

59 sd and 171 es from 9 rounds is atrocious but it absolutely crushed the round with a sd of 8.6. It would have been interesting to see 3 10 round groups between both.


Your link above imo shows that 3 round groups are absolutely worthless for a real accuracy evaluation. When you have 3 round groups with your best group being 3-4x better than the "average" there is absolutely zero consistency in that. They didn't publish all 3 groups but for example with the round that had the best being .57 moa and overall average being 2.07moa that shows that this load produced an average of 2.85 moa for the other 2 groups.

If you have a mental block on shooting larger numbered groups shoot a bunch of 2-3 and then do an overlay.

3 wildly different 3 round groups is a poor example of actual performance. It's also too small of a sample size imo.

From the FGMM link I posted

"Three 10-shot groups of the 69 grain Gold Medal Match ammunition were fired in a row with the resulting extreme spreads:

0.67”
0.73”
0.67”

for a 10-shot group average extreme spread of 0.69”. The three 10-shot groups were over-layed on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 30-shot composite group. The mean radius for the 30-shot composite group was 0.24”.

The smallest 10-shot group . . .







The 30-shot composite group . . .


"

A real example of consistency and performance.
 
Well yeah the shooter has to do their part but at the same time small sample sizes is a poor indication of performance imo.

Fps is not the only thing that can have an effect on accuracy. Seating, the bullet itself as in jacket uniformity, weight & length consistency, design, case, etc all play a role. Also looking at their test the rounds with the best ES and SD weren't the best performers which goes to my point above.

Example: fps, sd, es, avg, best

S&B 2782 fps 8.65 fps 27 fps 1.917″ 1.604″

Win 2777 fps 59.41 fps 171 fps 1.340″ .953″

59 sd and 171 es from 9 rounds is atrocious but it absolutely crushed the round with a sd of 8.6. It would have been interesting to see 3 10 round groups between both.


Your link above imo shows that 3 round groups are absolutely worthless for a real accuracy evaluation. When you have 3 round groups with your best group being 3-4x better than the "average" there is absolutely zero consistency in that. They didn't publish all 3 groups but for example with the round that had the best being .57 moa and overall average being 2.07moa that shows that this load produced an average of 2.85 moa for the other 2 groups.

If you have a mental block on shooting larger numbered groups shoot a bunch of 2-3 and then do an overlay.

3 wildly different 3 round groups is a poor example of actual performance. It's also too small of a sample size imo.

From the FGMM link I posted

"Three 10-shot groups of the 69 grain Gold Medal Match ammunition were fired in a row with the resulting extreme spreads:

0.67”
0.73”
0.67”

for a 10-shot group average extreme spread of 0.69”. The three 10-shot groups were over-layed on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 30-shot composite group. The mean radius for the 30-shot composite group was 0.24”.

The smallest 10-shot group . . .







The 30-shot composite group . . .


"

A real example of consistency and performance.

Agree to disagree, I think 3 round groups work fine. In the write up I posted, the entire test sample was too small I can admit it's not the best piece of data. However it was the only test I was able to find on that particular ammo that serve used, thus I posted it. While not perfect I believe it did indicate what you can expect with PMC Bronze which is ~2moa.

You're likely better at shooting than I, my mental blocks mean I stick to 3 round groups for my personal testing. But that's not to say I don't do 5-10s as well.
 
Agree to disagree, I think 3 round groups work fine. In the write up I posted, the entire test sample was too small I can admit it's not the best piece of data. However it was the only test I was able to find on that particular ammo that serve used, thus I posted it. While not perfect I believe it did indicate what you can expect with PMC Bronze which is ~2moa.

You're likely better at shooting than I, my mental blocks mean I stick to 3 round groups for my personal testing. But that's not to say I don't do 5-10s as well.

Sure, if you shoot enough 3 round groups and get consistent read outs. But if you keep ending up with random shit from .5 up to 3+ moa the ammo you're using isn't consistent enough to use the small 3 round sample size to state the true average with that particular equipment and ammo. In a situation like that imo you could say anything under X moa is more than likely an outlier lucky group not indicative of average performance while providing a somewhat broad range for the average.

My point is more for barrel and gun manufactures or someone (yt, magazine, website, etc) publishing info. Even more so with guns/barrels, especially with match ammo. Quality match ammo is usually very consistent. If you are a barrel or firearms manufacturer you can find a pro and do some real groups. Same with a major magazine/website.
 
Sure, if you shoot enough 3 round groups and get consistent read outs. But if you keep ending up with random shit from .5 up to 3+ moa the ammo you're using isn't consistent enough to use the small 3 round sample size to state the true average with that particular equipment and ammo. In a situation like that imo you could say anything under X moa is more than likely an outlier lucky group not indicative of average performance while providing a somewhat broad range for the average.

My point is more for barrel and gun manufactures or someone (yt, magazine, website, etc) publishing info. Even more so with guns/barrels, especially with match ammo. Quality match ammo is usually very consistent. If you are a barrel or firearms manufacturer you can find a pro and do some real groups. Same with a major magazine/website.

Well to continue the conversation and apologies for the long post I would like to add more of my take, mostly because I just enjoy talking about this stuff. You’re more than welcome to disagree, just tossing in my opinion.

Testing ammo comes down to sample size and your overall intent. 3 round groups give you an indictor as to the accuracy of the load, measured simply from the extreme spread from your target (SD at the chrono as well). Mutliple 3 round groups will demonstate both, accuracy and precision. So for instance that test lot of cheaper ammo is generally not very percise or accurate which is obvious in the results. My belief isn’t 3-5-10, it’s how many over what conditions to achieve the greatest results. A 1000 round group (hypothetically) will leave you with little error remaining, but that’s not a realistic amount. 60 will provide a more feasible number of overall shots. From that point, 3x20, 5x12, 10x6, the sample size is much greater in general, so the results will be better either way. There’s a formula to determine what a predicted 3 shot group would be with 7 more rounds it’s x2.15 (Litz) so 1/2moa 3 rd group could be predicted to be 1.075.

The article I mentioned only fired 18 rounds, likely not enough to be a defenative answer however, other factors are worth considering. The amount of time, money and effort to test what is not percision ammo. That 30 round test is almost double the amount of data, also worth mentioning the M80 test was with 2 different guns, so the real take home data might be even lessened. It is what it is, a simple test on cheap bullets, and not to any surpise they don’t bode well. But, I brought it in to play because, if I remember right, all the bullets performed under 3moa. So if you’re shooting 3moa groups, you might look at other factors.. Not that serve was - just in general.

Personally it comes to my intent, 3 round groups allow me to conserve my bullets, that I hand load, while getting respectable results. Aside from that, I don’t like spending a lot of time grouping at 100 for testing. I get what I need and move on to my schedule. This is my technique. But, it’s not ridged, for instance, I get free ammo at work, so I blast 5-10 round groups routinely. But, I am not testing the ammo - I am testing my ability to hold a group, to be a consistent shooter. So, while I’m grouping there, it’s not for the purposes of going back to the lab to make corrections, or hopefully to load up a shitload more bullets because I’m dead nuts.

Overall there are numerous ways to get to an acceptable answer for whatever the purpose is. What we all know is that conditions from my barrel to the target are far more likely to attribute to a miss than my 1/3moa match ammo, and $3000 rifle, with a $3000 piece of glass.

For testing, weather it’s an 18 round test, 30, or more, there’s a consideration that I have found interesting (because there’s math behind it). Litz has said testing numbers are accurate within 2% for a 1000, so with even 100 on a linear path you’ll take a 10% error, obviously the smaller the sample results in a reduced fidilety.
 
Well to continue the conversation and apologies for the long post I would like to add more of my take, mostly because I just enjoy talking about this stuff. You’re more than welcome to disagree, just tossing in my opinion.

Same here.

There’s a formula to determine what a predicted 3 shot group would be with 7 more rounds it’s x2.15 (Litz) so 1/2moa 3 rd group could be predicted to be 1.075.

Interesting, is there testing behind this? I'd imagine this is after getting some consistent results because if you aren't getting consistent 3 round groups thst basically goes out the window. Hell the first 2 shots might be the es.

I think the mean radius(average distance of impact from point of aim) is probably the best way to determine consistency. You could literally do a bunch of 1-2 shot groups to determine this.


But, I brought it in to play because, if I remember right, all the bullets performed under 3moa. So if you’re shooting 3moa groups, you might look at other factors.. Not that serve was - just in general.

Sure but at the same time they didn't publish 2 of the 3 groups. My example of the pmc doing the best group of .5 and averaging 2 shows it had two groups near 3 moa or at least 1 group well over 3 moa.


I think what you are saying is fine for testing hand loads (providing you are proficient at it) with known gear. I'd just like to see actual reviewers, companies, etc actually thoroughly test their claims.
 
Had a range day Friday. Had to rezero my Red Dot. Learned that a 25yd indoor zero doesn’t really translate outdoors at 100yds. So I redid it back at 50yds, and by the time I got it, I was out of .223 ammo.

Compound the fact that the Tula Ammo was not cycling the Mini properly, and it made for a frustrating day. So I basically had a semiauto bolt action. Only later did a buddy tell me that Tula .223 is on the underpowered side. Not sure how accurate that statement is.

Luckily my Glock loved Tula and chewed through it rather easily. So I finished up on a high note on a gorgeous day.
 
Had a range day Friday. Had to rezero my Red Dot. Learned that a 25yd indoor zero doesn’t really translate outdoors at 100yds. So I redid it back at 50yds, and by the time I got it, I was out of .223 ammo.

Compound the fact that the Tula Ammo was not cycling the Mini properly, and it made for a frustrating day. So I basically had a semiauto bolt action. Only later did a buddy tell me that Tula .223 is on the underpowered side. Not sure how accurate that statement is.

Luckily my Glock loved Tula and chewed through it rather easily. So I finished up on a high note on a gorgeous day.

Yeah tula especially isn't good.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

Don't use steel case in rifles imo. It is just not good for them. While you probably won't be doing the torture test of this is does show the substantial wear. They do make a point that the cost difference in ammo can let you buy replacement parts though. So just comes down to what you want.

50 yard zero will get you close to a 200 yard zero.
 
Yeah tula especially isn't good.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

Don't use steel case in rifles imo. It is just not good for them. While you probably won't be doing the torture test of this is does show the substantial wear. They do make a point that the cost difference in ammo can let you buy replacement parts though. So just comes down to what you want.

50 yard zero will get you close to a 200 yard zero.

Yeah, I think the modding trend with weapons today makes cheap ammo look appealing. Folks don’t care about parts they are probably gonna replace anyways.

All in all, that was probably my last outing with the Mini 14. Got a guy giving me a decent trade in price for the new PC Carbine with threaded barrel. Will definitely be only shooting brass out of this one.
 
Last edited:
Same here.



Interesting, is there testing behind this? I'd imagine this is after getting some consistent results because if you aren't getting consistent 3 round groups thst basically goes out the window. Hell the first 2 shots might be the es.

I think the mean radius(average distance of impact from point of aim) is probably the best way to determine consistency. You could literally do a bunch of 1-2 shot groups to determine this.




Sure but at the same time they didn't publish 2 of the 3 groups. My example of the pmc doing the best group of .5 and averaging 2 shows it had two groups near 3 moa or at least 1 group well over 3 moa.


I think what you are saying is fine for testing hand loads (providing you are proficient at it) with known gear. I'd just like to see actual reviewers, companies, etc actually thoroughly test their claims.

From my understanding that curve, is a noticed trend by applied ballistics, at least they’re the ones who have shown it to me. Now, could be that an earlier ballistician first noticed the trend and AB continued with it. My best guess is the numbers were developed using a large database of groupings and mathed out. If you’re interested I can take a picture of the table and PM you.

I agree mean radius or average to center will give you more data. There’s a program On Target, haven’t used it but heard it works help make the process easier. You can really get wrapped around examing groups no doubt, and the more scientific the approach the more nats ass you can get. Personally, I have done some of these things but I am not a bench shooter. I mentioned earlier, I grab what I need and move on to more drills. Especially if it’s windy, I never want to miss a day where I can call some real gusts.

Well, if some of those companies did exhaustive testing, I think they may not like to publish those results! In a world where everyone wants to be ‘sub moa’ saying you’re an moa producer probably hurts marketing.
 
From my understanding that curve, is a noticed trend by applied ballistics, at least they’re the ones who have shown it to me. Now, could be that an earlier ballistician first noticed the trend and AB continued with it. My best guess is the numbers were developed using a large database of groupings and mathed out. If you’re interested I can take a picture of the table and PM you.

I agree mean radius or average to center will give you more data. There’s a program On Target, haven’t used it but heard it works help make the process easier. You can really get wrapped around examing groups no doubt, and the more scientific the approach the more nats ass you can get. Personally, I have done some of these things but I am not a bench shooter. I mentioned earlier, I grab what I need and move on to more drills. Especially if it’s windy, I never want to miss a day where I can call some real gusts.

Well, if some of those companies did exhaustive testing, I think they may not like to publish those results! In a world where everyone wants to be ‘sub moa’ saying you’re an moa producer probably hurts marketing.

That's ok, thanks anyway.

Yeah I've downloaded a few apps that do that.

I agree I just roll my eyes at some cherry picked 3 round groups that some companies post.
 
There are days when I hate archery, today is one of those days.
 
Saturday was at the range with a buddy taking the new ar500 steel target I purchased from AR500 Target solutions for a run. Had so much fun went back on Sunday for another go. Enjoyed that so much I purchased another two target and they should arrive tomorrow. This weekend will take out all three and run some drills. Thinking about making some portable barriers to take with me on range days as well. There's usually at least one bay that is completely empty that I can set up just about any way I want.

It's an all outdoor range and I'm hoping the weather is agreeable.
 
I wish it wasn't so damn hot, I basically don't go shooting from June-Sept.
 
Saturday was at the range with a buddy taking the new ar500 steel target I purchased from AR500 Target solutions for a run. Had so much fun went back on Sunday for another go. Enjoyed that so much I purchased another two target and they should arrive tomorrow. This weekend will take out all three and run some drills. Thinking about making some portable barriers to take with me on range days as well. There's usually at least one bay that is completely empty that I can set up just about any way I want.

It's an all outdoor range and I'm hoping the weather is agreeable.

I love steel targets. Thinking about building 3 more target stands for these targets

bullseye-torso-open-front_1.jpg
 
Have the medium and large
08_new.jpg

Tn4D8D0.jpg

SS-2-gong-rack.jpg

This without the chest piece.

2CFNXIM.jpg

c2XS9tL.jpg

wRQDesg.jpg

Are the last pictures there of your back yard?

I know what you mean about heat, it’s pretty hot where I’m at. Usually start on the range and it’s 115.
 
Are the last pictures there of your back yard?

I know what you mean about heat, it’s pretty hot where I’m at. Usually start on the range and it’s 115.


Yes, against a side wall. Just where I assembled them. I shot them with a benjamin pellet gun.
 
Back
Top