Occasionally I'm asked what causes a flier.

there are a few legitimate causes such as the shooter pulled the shot and knew it....as a matter of fact he called it before he saw the bullet hole.

another common cause is cleaning and the first one or two shots from an oily or "unfouled" barrel may go somewhat astray....other than that we use the term far far too loosely.

IMO the flier is merely a part of the group and isn't at all a flier...it's just a word we use to explain something that don't make sense.

Two shots touching and one an inch away.....we call it a flier as we can't believe it isn't touching the other two.

Here's what it seems to me.....If we apply modern statistical methods to our groups then we can give a number to every shot.

example: we shoot ten shots and the group measures 1.725 inches diameter. If we measure the distance from the theoretical center of the group to each actual shot we might wind up with these numbers

1. .52
2. .21
3. .69
4. .11
5. .06
6. .67
7. .75
8. .43
9. .23
10. .72

If we calculate a mean and standard deviation and multiply the standard deviation times 3.1 we get the actual radius of the group and times 2 it's now the theoretical group size.

We know that 67% of the shots actually will fall in the (+/-) first standard deviation and 95% of the shots will fall in the (+/-) second deviation and all the shots (99.9%) will fall in the (+/-) third standard deviation. Interestingly enough we rarely see shots fall in the last deviation as it's a small percentage so we actually will observe (possibly)1" groups most often and even smaller ones occasionally but the actual group size is much larger.....at least statistically.

What's being said here is that it's entirely likely that that flier isn't at all.....it's merely part of the group and needs to be counted as such.

With the exception of the cleaning issue and "pulled" shots the only way to address the fliers is to reduce the groups and read the fliers as a part of the whole.

I don't know how many times I've read posts from guys trying to address fliers when they just had lousy groups and didn't want to admit it to themselves. It's time we understand the term "flier" is way to ofter overworked...it's merely an observation of the actual group and needs to be understood that way.

vapodog

It’s very refreshing reading your post and not hearing the usual rationalization about fliers. You said it they are what they are part of the true group.

Excellent post vapodog. I wonder how many folks, and I am just looking at this from the standpoint of a hunter, that worry about fliers would be willing to put their gun in a machine rest, where after the rifle was set up on the target and the rifle fired by remote means, would be willing to accept the fact, that any rifle has the ability to have one round out of every 3 or 5 or however many, wander off from the others. I guess I am old school, or just have a different outlook on my hunting, but I never sight a rifle in to achieve a small group. I sight my guns in so that every shot I fire at a hundred yard target lands within an inch or half inch of where I wanted it. JMO

vapodog that was one intriguing post. My groups are going to get tighter as I just placed an order for a Timney trigger for my FN 98-rough darn trigger caused a huge flier --couple of em. I am going to pull things together now that I have a clear understanding -- thanks.

A "flier" is, to me, a unexpected and unexplained deviation from the statistical norm. If I have a rifle that regularly shoots sub-MOA groups, and I pull a shot from fatigue or a sandbag moving upon the shot, it is by definition a statistical anomally or flier. The good news is that I know why.

When I touch off a round and it is absolutely on target according to my lights, yet is outside a MOA, then you gotta wonder. There are so many potential reasons that are outside the shooter/rifle combination that it bogles the mind. A few that are subtle are seating depth, neck tension, primer seating, and trim length. And those are just with the bullet/cartridge combination.

I find that changing the bags or my grip will change the equation. Also, failing to line up right behind the telescopic sight is one of my common failings. One I had never thought much about, but which I read about in one of the gun rags is a void in the lead inside the body of the bullet.

It seems that someone developed a device for sonically testing for voids which became popular with very serious target shooters. According to this article, several bullet manufacturers had purchased them and included "'void" testing in their QA.

The rifles and components that we have today are so very good, that when an anomally occurs, as they do, it is most probably not the rifle and probably not the components, but our use or misuse of either or both.

Notwithstanding these "facts," I have taken to mentally writing off "fliers" to "voids." Of course, it could have been "operator error," but "voids" is much easier on my ego. Kudude

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:
A "flier" is, to me, a unexpected and unexplained deviation from the statistical norm. ...

I agree with what Kudude has said.

And I've always called what Vapodog is talking about - "Random Group Dispersion". Also agree with him that many confuse what a bullet hole actually represents when it is a bit farther away than what they wanted it. It does seem a lot of folks mistakenly call it a Flier when it is really just RGD.
---

For what it is worth, I seem to have eliminated a good many Fliers at long distance by Polishing the inside of the Case Mouth with 0000 SteelWool wrapped around a regular old worn out Bore Brush. Just stick it into a handle and give it a couple of twists AFTER you have Trimmed, Deburred and Chamfered the Case Mouth.
---

Excellent thread Vapodog.

Harold Vaughn (Rifle Accuracy Facts) verified that
one source of fliers was the barrel coming loose while firing. Yes it can happen.
Good luck1

Hawkin,

Does it tighten back up? Does it keep on loosening? More please. Kudude

Boy did this jog a few brain cells.
I read an artical that was published by the Army back in 188? and it was conserning this very topic. It was written during the testing of the .45-70.

I believe the conclusion was that for a flier to be a "flier" it had to be outside the main group by 3x the dia of the accepted group size. I know I read this in the office of the Design Manger at a previous job, but I'll be dipped if I can remember what book it was in.
Does this ring any bells for anybody else too?

quote:

I believe the conclusion was that for a flier to be a "flier" it had to be outside the main group by 3x the dia of the accepted group size.

I believe this is consistent with the statistical model I've drawn.

In fact statistics mathematics does go into many standard deviations beyond the norm as things happen (that we don't always understand) that are far out of the group. However those occurrances are indeed rare and should not be used to explain the obvious.....that is that our real groups are actually larger than we think they are.

One can even conclude that theres no difference in accuracy of a rifle that just shot a 1/2" group and one that had just shot a 3/4" group. It's simply a matter of chance.

My definition of a "flier" is a bullet that impacts outside the expected area WHEN THE SHOT IS CALLED "GOOD".

To lay blame on the round or rifle when I have clearly flubbed the delivery of the shot is simply ridiculous.

This is one reason why most of my rifle load development uses ten-round groups. Even if I have called a shot or two as being 'out' for whatever reason, I'll still have a meaningful number of shots in the group by which to judge the load. Ten rounds are still pretty inexpensive, when we're talking cast bullets (which represent about 95% of my rifle shooting, these days).

Of course, this method of interpreting groups places a great demand on one's ability to call the shots! I've always loved Joe Benner's classic line after winning his 1960 Olympic pistol gold medal in Rome. Some reporter asked if he had any trouble with flinching. Joe: "I'm too lazy to flinch". THAT'S the state of mind I strive for when working my rifles on the bench. The ability to call the shots is vital, and failing to call them accurately will lead to difficulties in making good assessments.

Flyers: Funny thing human psychology. People just do not want to believe that they are the biggest source of error in the system. Instead they buy equipment, they try “magic†reloading techniques, people do everything but practice. I have gone through the denial stage. Done all that. And now, with an accurate rifle, with good loads, I truly believe 99% of my “flyers†are due to me. Until you shoot enough to have confidence in yourself, and your rifle, well you tend to blame your rifle/ammunition for those things. But 99% of those flyers are caused by you. It is just so hard to believe that looking through the sights a little different, holding the rifle just a little different, and where that rifle is resting on your shoulder, makes a big difference on target. But it really really does.

Those “flyers†are a measure of the system. That is you, the rifle, and your ammunition. There are a few people whose aiming error is under .5 Minutes of Angle Most of the population is about .5 Miles of Angle.

Want to reduce your “flyers�. Shot until the brass pile is above your hips. Around that time you will be able to sort ammunition problems from rifle problems, from aiming error.

But practice with good barrels, good bedding, and good bullets. At some point you will see nice round groups. That is when you are getting consistent.

A good read on this subject can be found on this site.

http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/

select How do bullet's fly (sic)

Warning
It is a fairly long and dry read, but full of interesting information and opinions.

muck