Flyers or Shooter Error?

  • 1.2K Views
  • Last Post 04 January 2020
  • Topic Is Solved
GWarden posted this 28 December 2019

In the past there has been discussion on flyers and what is the cause. All kinds of ideas on the cause. For me the problem is not flyers; the problem with bullet, lube build up etc. For me it is the shooter(me). It is nice to blame the problem with equipment, etc. but I know that those bullets outside the group result with me. Confession is good for the soul, bad for the reputation. My shooter mentor hammered into me to keep meticulous records, even includes my mental attitude when shooting. I have two 30.06's  a 30.40 and a 6mm Rem. that I have shot enough and worked up very accurate loads with over the years. It has taken lots of time to get where they are shooting well. One of the biggest factors in improvement of group size was the bullet mix I use. I had tried all the normal mixes that are mentioned in forum and loading manuals. I stumbled upon a mix of 15# lead, 25# mag shot plus 2% tin added. How did I come up with that mix, accident, no other reason. This mix gives me the most consistent and smallest groups of any mixes I have tried. 

Ok, I headed down a bunny trail, get back to the topic. For me the biggest thing that affects my group size is consistent hold, pressure between rifle and shoulder. Each rifle gives the best results when I found the pressure it preferred on the butt plate and my shoulder. The attached photo was shot with a Rem long range 700 30.06, probably my most accurate CB with GC. This was a 100 yd 10 shot group. This is not a once in a blue moon target, but what it will do in good weather conditions, and I am consistent in my hold. The two shots outside the group were strictly shooter error, nothing else to blame.  A member on the forum got me started with the 6mm's and am getting the same results

. 

Do others feel that on most occasions the problem of the shots outside the group is shooter related? Again talking about a rifle that you have worked up really good loads.

Bob

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • delmarskid
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Larry Gibson posted this 04 January 2020

John

"For similar reasons, ladder tests, the way most do them, are just hocus pocus and lead the shooter to think he knows something he doesn't. The underlying principle is that trying to extract meaning from where one, or a few, shots, land is chasing your tail."

I could not agree more....absolutely correct!  Those that use such testing don't understand the random dispersion of shots within the cone of fire is not predictable.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 04 January 2020

... when we were playing with tuners we could change the shape of the " cone " by moving the weight a few THOUSANDTHS ...  oval from 10 to 4 o'clock .... oval from 2 to 8 ...  or round ..

... and i could blow a shot by changing the position of my elbow on a 3 inch thick concrete bench ...

pretty scary stuff ...

ken

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 04 January 2020

Bud sez: "Working on getting that cone of fire smaller is the key. In score matches,"

==============

And in group matches as well. When trying to  improve bullet fit or find the best powder charge trying to improve the cone of fire is the right way to think about it unless the outliers are way out and/or usually in the same direction. Trying to eliminate the kind of "fliers" that disappear in a composite group is chasing phantoms.  This leads to such things as using a magnifier to look for tiny defects and weight sorting to 0.02 grains that I just saw somebody claim today on another forum.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • RicinYakima
GWarden posted this 03 January 2020

Thanks for the input on this post. Been some great ideas shared, hopefully we all learned something- I know I did.

Bob

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Bud Hyett posted this 03 January 2020

Bud sez:

"The alternative is to shoot five five-shot groups in the same session at the bench. Then graph the groups using the four closest shots measurement for each group to recognize the outliers."

========

Bud,

When I shoot five 5-shot groups identify, the, usually one "outlier" in each 5-shot group and then look at the 25 shot composite group I usually find the most, sometimes all 5, of the "outliers" have disappeared into the 25 shot composite group and no longer look like outliers at all but just part of the group (cone of fire).  I apparently don't understand what you are suggesting?

John

__________

John; What I am seeking is the pattern of outliers. If the same place (say 10 o'clock) and distance, then I look at my shooting for the cause. If random placement, then I attribute this to the ammunition. I discovered this testing .22 LR match ammunition in my BSA International; on my third or fourth shot going out at 10 or 11 o'clock because I got complacent and leaned forward a little more into the cheekpiece as I fired. Then I got critical with myself and concentrated again to get the remaining shots in the group

In these tests, the "cone of fire" was generally the same and representative of what I collectively saw on targets in matches. Working on getting that cone of fire smaller is the key. In score matches, we set up for each target and that is an added factor for each shot. In group matches, we use the same bag setup and I fight hard not to be too complacent after the first two shots. 

Ed Doonan taught me to check the shooter going into a testing session. He built a Springfield action with M-2 Bolt and a Hart bull barrel that shot like you would not believe. He would often shoot several groups with this rifle before testing a load to test himself. This is one of the best instances of advice that I have gotten. 

I sometimes think I shot better when I first started because I did not know to worry about all these factors. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 03 January 2020

Bud sez:

"The alternative is to shoot five five-shot groups in the same session at the bench. Then graph the groups using the four closest shots measurement for each group to recognize the outliers."

========

Bud,

When I shoot five 5-shot groups identify, the, usually one "outlier" in each 5-shot group and then look at the 25 shot composite group I usually find the most, sometimes all 5, of the "outliers" have disappeared into the 25 shot composite group and no longer look like outliers at all but just part of the group (cone of fire).  I apparently don't understand what you are suggesting?

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 03 January 2020

Larry sez:

"What is interesting, if one is shooting for score instead of just group size, in viewing the individual 10 shot groups afterword can be seeing the slight shift of the group center between the groups.  If a sight adjustment to "zero" the rifle is made based on one group then the true center of the cone of fire may not be correct for "zero" leading to some loss of points in a match at distance.  It's also evidence of why making any sight change based on a small number (1 -5 shots) of shots if they are within the cone of fire will probably lead to a loss of points with the next shots.  

When we move the sights we do not move the impact of the next bullet ...... we move the center of the cone of fire (or group if you will).

LMG

============

I believe this is a very important point and one apparently not understood by as many shooters as it should be.

For similar reasons, ladder tests, the way most do them, are just hocus pocus and lead the shooter to think he knows something he doesn't. The underlying principle is that trying to extract meaning from where one, or a few, shots, land is chasing your tail.

The extreme case of this and one more easily understood is the usual slug gun hunter trying to sight in his inaccurate gun with the minimum of expensive and very hard kicking ammunition changing the sights based on where one shot lands then maybe having to change them back, or to a third setting, after the next shot lands.  I also see this with rifles, especially powerfully ones, at our range before ever hunting season.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • M3 Mitch
Larry Gibson posted this 03 January 2020

Bud

 

That is an interesting method especially with Excel to help analyze.  I used that years ago … pre-Excel though.  still was helpful.

However, I found for visual reference 3 separate ten shot groups and an overlay for a composite comparison worked better.  Again that was pre-Excel so not having done that I don't know which is better.  

To accurately line up the targets for the overlay I punched a hole with a stick pin at the center of the POA in each target.  Then, given identical targets sizes (the paper size) the pin could be inserted through the holes and the edges of the target paper paralleled.  I then traced through the bullet holes into one target for a 20 or 30 shot composite. 

What is interesting, if one is shooting for score instead of just group size, in viewing the individual 10 shot groups afterword can be seeing the slight shift of the group center between the groups.  If a sight adjustment to "zero" the rifle is made based on one group then the true center of the cone of fire may not be correct for "zero" leading to some loss of points in a match at distance.  It's also evidence of why making any sight change based on a small number (1 -5 shots) of shots if they are within the cone of fire will probably lead to a loss of points with the next shots.  

When we move the sights we do not move the impact of the next bullet ...... we move the center of the cone of fire (or group if you will).

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Bud Hyett posted this 03 January 2020

Finalizing a load and developing confidence it it; I shoot a number of targets:

  • Put up three targets over each other.
  • Shoot first ten-shot group in relaxed manner
  • Pull first target and replace with a fresh target.
  • Shoot second ten-shot target in relaxed manner
  • Pull two targets and replace them with a fresh target
  • Shoot third ten-shot group in relaxed manner
  • Pull both targets

This now give three ten-shot targets, one twenty-shot target and one thirty shot target. Measure the ten-shot target for the ten shots and "best group of shots" which will be eight or nine shots. This is to recognize the outliers.

Graph these in EXCEL with columns for each target measurement. Bar graphs will quickly show the comparison. This is a lot of work, but the results will build understanding of your load and what to expect in a match. There are too many other factors to worry about to question your load in a match. 

The alternative is to shoot five five-shot groups in the same session at the bench. Then graph the groups using the four closest shots measurement for each group to recognize the outliers. 

The principle source of error is the placement of the succeeding targets to ensure they are aligned with the second and third target. 

 

 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Larry Gibson posted this 03 January 2020

John said;

"I like to shoot 5 shot groups and a large majority of my groups have what most shooters call fliers. The worst shot in my 5 shot groups increases the size of the groups made by the other four shots by 35 to 50 percent if averaged. But If I overlay those groups and make a composite 20 or 30 shot group the composite shot group seldom has a flier that I am tempted to think I might legitimately disregard. In the composite group the fliers have disappeared. Where did those fliers go?  I think I am looking at what Larry calls the "cone of fire".

Yes, we are saying the same thing and that is what i mean by cone of fire.

 

Paul....yup that there sure is a flyer in my book.......

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Paul Pollard posted this 02 January 2020

This is a real flier. The shot to the left lost a gas check and I saw the glint of the copper hit about 10 feet in front of the bench. The shot to the right is probably just about normal, but without the lost gas check to the left, it would be the "flier."

 

 

10 shot with flier

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 02 January 2020

I think Larry and I are saying exactly the same thing. If we were routinely shooting 20 shot groups instead of 5 and 10 shot groups we would think we see a lot fewer fliers.  

I like to shoot 5 shot groups and a large majority of my groups have what most shooters call fliers. The worst shot in my 5 shot groups increases the size of the groups made by the other four shots by 35 to 50 percent if averaged. But If I overlay those groups and make a composite 20 or 30 shot group the composite shot group seldom has a flier that I am tempted to think I might legitimately disregard. In the composite group the fliers have disappeared. Where did those fliers go?  I think I am looking at what Larry calls the "cone of fire".

I like to see those nice round 5 shot groups that occasionally show up as much as the next shooter but I don't kid myself that the ones with a "bad" shot enlarging the group by 50% or so are because something was wrong with that particular shot and my rifle/load/shooter combination is really capable of the accuracy indicated by the four best shots in each group.

This is not to say that there are never real fliers caused by something being wrong with the individual shot that is out. If the offending shots often increase the four shot group by over 100 percent, or are mostly off in the same general direction we maybe should should check for something being wrong with that individual shot -- especially the nut behind the buttplate. But for shots that look bad in a five or ten shot group but would be in a 30 shot composite group (aka cone of fire) chasing fliers is not only a waste of time but leads us to concentrating on the wrong types of fixes.

John

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • M3 Mitch
Larry Gibson posted this 02 January 2020

Some food for discussion

BTW; what is a flyer?

I think the OPs target shows 2 definite "flyers" and Ric's "flyers" on his target are actually just in the cone of fire for that load.  I've found in a quality rifle with really well cast bullets over a good load that the majority of shots [80% +/-]  will group together and remainder will be close as in Ric's example.  In the OP's example those 2 flyers could be caused by the shooter or any number of things.  If the shooter error is eliminated [by shooting a consistent group with jacketed match bullets w/o flyers) then it most likely (to me) appears to be a bullet related defect.  

Shooting groups with a larger number of shots or by shooting several groups w/o and sight changes and overlaying the POA to get the overall group size will tell what the real cone of fire is.  Measuring different group sizes and averaging will not tell you much of anything about the cone of fire. 

Many times when shooting multiple shots will seemingly "group" in one spot within the cone of fire.  Then, because of random dispersion of shots with in the cone of fire a couple my not be in the group yet are still within the cone of fire.  So do we assume those two were flyers?  No, I don't think they are as long as they are within the rifle/loads known cone of fire.

LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
  • M3 Mitch
45 2.1 posted this 02 January 2020

45 2.1,

Well OK, disagreement and argument supported by evidence is how we learn. What is it exactly you don't agree with?

This: "You will see for yourself that getting a better gun and/or better ammo will produce smaller groups but it will NOT eliminate fliers.  That rig in a machine rest will produce smaller groups yet but NOT eliminate fliers. I am talking about randomly placed fliers not like the group Bob presented in the first post. Most of the things we call fliers will always be there."

 

You say "The Answer is: ---------." What exact question are your answering.  I don't remember anybody asking a question on this thread. Of course, but you made a definitive all inclusive statement. Just who were you targeting, only yourself or everybody?

 What kind of experiments have you run and in what way have the results been different from mine? My spectrum is quite broad in view... more so then what I've seen you post in the last 36 years I've been reading the "Fouling Shot". My interest in precision cast shooting stated with these two statements: "Match your alloy to your load" and Pope's statement that the 45-70 wouldn't shoot. The first was right and the second was dead wrong.

My evidence has been reported in detail in three Fouling Shot articles and I have explained why I have reached the conclusions that I have about fliers.  It's there for anybody to see, question, or comment on. Hmm, I just made a comment about that in case you missed it... I don't agree with you.

I have made a lot of mistakes over a long time so I may be completely wrong but will wait for actual evidence and a logical argument as to why before taking too seriously a flat opinion with no supporting evidence.Seriously, you expect me to take three short articles as proof? It would at least take a manual the size of Veral Smiths to give even a cursory look at what people do wrong or a book to help them see what to do right. There is loads of miss information out there now. I hope you will give us the benefit of your investigations. You have made a statement that nothing much has improved over the last 20 years. Have you thought that you might be beating a dead horse with the way your doing now? I'll give you a clue........ two diameter Barlow type design bullets require a very close tolerance to the throat to shoot below the group size you've reached (as a group). Trying something the same way and expecting different results is one definition of insanity. Try something else..........

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 01 January 2020

45 2.1,

Well OK, disagreement and argument supported by evidence is how we learn. What is it exactly you don't agree with? You say "The Answer is: ---------." What exact question are your answering.  I don't remember anybody asking a question on this thread.

 What kind of experiments have you run and in what way have the results been different from mine?

My evidence has been reported in detail in three Fouling Shot articles and I have explained why I have reached the conclusions that I have about fliers.  It's there for anybody to see, question, or comment on.

I have made a lot of mistakes over a long time so I may be completely wrong but will wait for actual evidence and a logical argument as to why before taking too seriously a flat opinion with no supporting evidence. I hope you will give us the benefit of your investigations.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • MarkinEllensburg
  • M3 Mitch
45 2.1 posted this 01 January 2020

You shouldn't believe this. Try it yourself.
John
I have, extensively, and don't agree with you. It took thirty years to find out why also. Basically the answer is: how well you can cast, the alloy you use versus the load you use and how well the bullet fits once it starts moving.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
RicinYakima posted this 01 January 2020

 John,

"So the hard part is done for Ric.  He just needs to stop doing it. OK I know that's easier said than done."

Until I built this rifle, I didn't know that I was doing the no-no. With the military rifles, the groups are so big I couldn't tell what was me and what was normal group dispersion.

Now if I can stop holding my breath too long, flinching, blinking my eye, loosing concentration, etc., etc.

I started shooting benchrest with a 14 pound BSA International Mark III doing BR-50. No one ever, never, shoot a perfect 5000 score, which was 50 shoots in 30 minutes with a group size of .220" centered in the bullseye. The best rifles, shooters and ammunition had outliers of more than that size. In the end, it was the most perfect ammo that fit your chamber, and still there were no perfect scores. It came down to who had the fewest "flyers".

Ric

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 01 January 2020

Good idea Mitch.

You will see for yourself that getting a better gun and/or better ammo will produce smaller groups but it will NOT eliminate fliers.  That rig in a machine rest will produce smaller groups yet but NOT eliminate fliers. I am talking about randomly placed fliers not like the group Bob presented in the first post.

Most of the things we call fliers will always be there.  The match grade jacketed bullet groups mentioned above were much smaller than the cheap 22lr groups. But the worst JB shot made the 5 shot group 52% bigger than the best 4 shots.  The worse 22LR shot in each group made the 5 shot groups 38% bigger than the best 4 shots.  if I had shot enough groups maybe the percentages would have converged.

Things aren't alway what "common sense" tells you.  The Earth isn't flat, the Sun doesn't rotate about the Earth, and better rifle/load combinations don't have fewer or less frustrating "fliers" -- just smaller groups.

You shouldn't believe this. Try it yourself.

John

Attached Files

M3 Mitch posted this 31 December 2019

A thought might be to have or obtain a really good .22 rimfire target rifle, shoot some groups, even at 50 yards, with that.  Use Green Tag or better ammo.  Maybe have a buddy who shoots better than you do, shoot some groups.  This takes the home cast bullet out of the equation. 

Or a good centerfire, outright bench rest gun.  If you are getting flyers with that, most likely it's you, not the gun, not the ammo.

BTW this month's Gun Digest Magazine has a good article on shooting, on how consistent hard holding helps get better groups, even (the author claims) higher measured velocities (like 20 FPS) with a good firm hold as opposed to letting the gun "free recoil". 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 31 December 2019

The general assumption in this thread seems to be that the best way to improve accuracy is to improve your shooting technique.  i think a good case can be made for this and believe it usually applies to my shooting most of the time.

A secondary contention supporting the first assumption is that most,or all,"fliers" are caused by shooting technique.  I don't pretend to know if this it true or not. It is certainly different from the usual belief of a lot of cast bullet shooters whose favorite suspect is differences in the bullets.  [This belief in bullet inconsistency manifests itself in it weight sorting bullets ,often to the amazing precision or 0.1% or less.-- (0.2grain for 200 grain bullets).] It is probably overdue to give this theory a rest and think about shooting techniques instead.

Certainly a good case can be argued that shooting is the problem if the fliers are all, or usually, off in a similar direction. Ric's example is instructive because his fliers fly in the same general direction and he has even figured out what causes them.  So the hard part is done for Ric.  He just needs to stop doing it. OK I know that's easier said than done.

I don't know about others but i seldom see such a pattern in the shots out of my groups.  I may think I see one in one string of groups but looking at more groups usually ruins the pattern and the fliers usually seem random.  In fact I usually find it hard to believe there are fliers in the sense that something was wrong with the one shot. One shot has to be the worst and I think that is just how the cookie crumbles.  For evidence and arguments that this is what is happening see my two articles on fliers in TFS #221 and 223. 

One bit if evidence is that my fliers were worse in groups of match grade jacketed bullets than in groups of my cast bullets or of 22LR fodder from Walmart.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close