RIFLE magazine article by Terry Wieland

  • 485 Views
  • Last Post 22 April 2019
RicinYakima posted this 15 April 2019

Latest issue discusses the number of shots to determine accuracy. The CBA seems to always be ahead of the popular press with issues of importance.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
beltfed posted this 15 April 2019

Did not read the Rifle.

Did he come up with 7 shots?

beltfed/arnie

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 16 April 2019

Nope, 130 shots; one hundred thirty!

Attached Files

argie1891 posted this 16 April 2019

wow 130 shots wonder how he came up with that number?? why not just go for 150 or more. I need to borrow the article from ric. or buy the magazine. 

if you need me I will be at the range

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 16 April 2019

Nope, that appeared to be Harry Pope's number.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 16 April 2019

Would someone email me a copy of the article?

Thanks;

joe b.

joeb33050@yahoo.com

Attached Files

Johnshandloads posted this 16 April 2019

That is a good article. I love taking "too many" shots at the same target. You learn what is really going on with you and the rifle and the ammunition. I am usually too 'frugal' to lay targets on top of one another stacked. I have used a couple paper plates to do that though. Showed me where the bullet was impacting from different loads aimed in the same spot. Thanks for posting. I got the email about the issue of Rifle and never opened it until your post.

Attached Files

BigMan54 posted this 17 April 2019

I sorta did that once. 20rds from a solid bench with my M77 in .250-3000.

Ended with a 1 5/8" group at 100yds. Hard to believe I managed to NOT throw a single flier. Then some a who cross fired on my target and put a 44 slug into the 9 ring.    

Long time Caster/Reloader, Getting back into it after almost 10yrs. Life Member NRA 40+yrs, Life S.A.S.S. #375. Does this mean a description of me as a fumble-fingered knuckle-draggin' baboon. I also drool in my sleep. I firmly believe that true happiness is a warm gun. Did I mention how much I HATE auto-correct on this blasted tablet.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 21 April 2019

Would someone copy this article and send it to me? Please?

joe b.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 21 April 2019

It's on its way Joe.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 21 April 2019

Latest issue discusses the number of shots to determine accuracy. The reasons for that were listed. Currently, we don't shoot matches like that. The CBA seems to always be ahead of the popular press with issues of importance. Ahead just how? The shooters now seemed to have forgotten what was known at that past time in shooting history. The past articles are there to learn from.........................

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 21 April 2019

Really? Seems we have been discussing this issue here for about 18months.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 21 April 2019

Yes.... that's correct......................with lots of opinions given. Their 120 to 140 shot groups were for the length of the matches so they knew what to expect. Considering the 5 or 10 shot slow fire matches of several cast bullet groups, the number of shots in the group have little to do with barrel heating or group walking in a more intense rapid fire match. Without reporting the time or cadence the groups were fired in, very little is learned about the rifle.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 21 April 2019

Thanks, John. I read the article several times. 35 yards? Could this be drivel? It looks like drivel. Did I miss the important part? Is there an important part? What did youse learn from this?

joe b.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 21 April 2019

In my, not always, humble opinion;

it is drivel,

there is no important part.

I learned nothing from the article. The Rifle editor should be embarrassed.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • David Reiss CBA Membership Director
Johnshandloads posted this 22 April 2019

I thought the main idea from the article was "you don't learn much from a 3 shot group or 5 shot group". I have literally been told I took too many shots at a given target because I would shoot 20 or 30 shots at the same target. Many times people "Shoot for groups" and take 3 shots or 5 shots. The classic "sub moa" 3 shot group. How about a 10 shot group? The point being, many times, as the amount of shots increases, so does the group size. I like shooting 20 - 30 shots and have a big hole with a clump or two and maybe some fliers. Usually everything outside the main hole is due to my lack of perfect shooting.

He mentions fatigue and how long matches would last and the strength and stamina needed to shoot heavy rifles that much for that long. All interesting to think about, to me.

Attached Files

lotech posted this 22 April 2019

Terry Wieland is an excellent writer, and in comparison with other gunwriters, he's far more creative. He doesn't re-hash the same material time and again, but about half of his articles are not of great interest to me. That's certainly not his fault. However, if there was some worthwhile point to the "130 shot group" article, I completely missed it. 

Attached Files

Close