For a hunting rifle I think 3 shot groups are the way to go. If you need 5 shots on any animal you choose to shoot, you shouldn't be shooting, wheras a second or if needed a third shot is fairly normal practice in a hunting situation.
I will agree though, for if you are shooting targets, you need at least 5 shots to create your group to see a real indicator of accuracy.

Three-shot "groups" are absolutely meaningless. Next time you will regale us with a one-shot group, I presume ?

C.

GFP,

Just curious what sort of hunting Remington is reccomending those loads for. And also if they give any indication as to the velocities one should expect.

I agree that the cost of over the counter ammo is once again getting out of hand. It is good to see low recoil options for those who do not reload though.

Carcano, actually for those of us who have our noggens removed from our orifices enough to be able to place a three shot group, they are very viable.

If you require a minimum of 5 shots to get a real feel for where your rifle is supposed to be hitting then I would suggest it is a lack of experience on your part. Of corse, being from the prohibitive and restricted euro sector this is not an unexpected or suprising revelation. Keep trying though, you will catch up to your betters someday.

You might be right here, Jerry...

Regards, Carcano

A long, long, time ago I learned a lesson that has stuck with me: never give advice unless it is requested, and if it is not well received then drop it.
Jerry/AK

All of this activity in the reduced recoil area is due to propellant technology. Several powders of recent vintage stress ease of ignition and insensitivity to pressure....meaning that as the pressure curve rises, the burn rate itself is not increased as much as in "normal" powders.

This allows fine accuracy with low load densities, regardless of powder position in the case. Hence, we can produce reduced loads that have fine accuracy, in many cases better than the full power loads.

Of course, this has been around a long time in the pistol arena... witness the fine 45 ACP which drives tacks at very low load densities. Rifles are tricky, as they have such high working pressures that the burn rates dance around at low pressures, plus the appropriate powders are hard to ignite.

Seafire has the right idea with Blue Dot as it is not superfast and is 29% nitroglycerine making it easy to ignite. I use the new Tightgroup powder in my 358 Win with 158 gr cast .357s for plus or minus 12 fps and 1.0 MOA at 1150 fps. Trust me... there is no other propellant that will do this.

For rifles, XMP5744 is another powder designed specifically for ease of ignition, low load densities and insensitivity to pressure. The smallest groups I have fired from the 300 RUM, 338 RUM and 338 Win have all used XMP5744.

You boys done with him yet?
He's loving this crap!!!
Mike

"I too believe that useful information can be gleaned from three shot groups, especially a series of them."



A series of three shot groups isn't a 3 shot group :-).



As long as all the data is considered--i.e., 'bad' groups are counted along with 'good'--even 2 shot groups can be made to give acceptable statistical data. For that matter, as long as there are no sighting changes, a series of one shot per target would work just fine as well. But note again the need for series.



Statistics (typically) _always_ involves a 'good enough estimate to be able to say that result X has Y probability of being Z close to the "true" population value' sort of notion. The discussion here needs to be on defining what are acceptable Y's and Z's for various purposes--not the shot string size. Basically, given these definitions, once Y and Z are defined, a reasonable X, or # of shots per group, is a very simple matter of solving for X in some pretty simple equations.



As some have noted, a low X is just fine for some purposes. (Haven't we all taken a single shot to see if the sights are 'on' or not at times? I have, certainly.) For other purposes, a high X is better.



My advice? Discuss Y and Z, not X. X'll take care of itself.

I know I shouldn't but was there ever a more meaningless rifle than a Carcano? I too believe that useful information can be gleaned from three shot groups, especially a series of them.

I am surprised by the amount of wrangling over the 3 shot vs. 5 shot group discussion. Without resorting to personal attacks or scolding others who may done so, I would just say that I shoot the "inadequate" 3 shot groups whenever I am shooting a lightweight barrel rifle, or a caliber larger than .22. I try to let the barrel fully cool between groups and even try to allow at least one or two minutes between shots for each group. Granted 10 shot groups (or 50 shot groups, for that matter) might be better or more statistically accurate, but I don't have time to shoot that many shots per group and to do so in a way that won't be unduly influenced by an overheated barrel. Not to mention that I have a tougher time staying focused for the group.
When shooting my old .223 Savage bolt action, I did shoot 5 shot groups and no issues, since the .223 didn't heat up the barrel as quickly as the .243, .270, 7mm-08 or 30-06 that I was also shooting at the time. I will occasionally check my present rifles (a 270WSM and 6.5x55) with a 5 shot group, but all my load testing has revolved around 3 shot groups. I guess if that makes me ballistically ignorant, so be it. Perhaps people with more available time and resources can shoot the 5, 10 or 20 shot groups and continue to enlighten the rest of us as to the absolute performance of their rifle and loads, hopefully without displaying a condescending attitude or disparaging the inadequacies of our techniques.

Hey Gonzo,



It happens strictly because I miss Mortie so darn much!



So since it takes two to argue, me arguing with Carcano, makes me a putz too I guess. ( Bruce is cheering this development!)



cheers

seafire

Sabot, and we have cowboy action shooting to thank for those developments, I suspect.

Even though the IMR SR powders have been ideal for reduced loads, they achieved it through high bulk density. Another way to achieve the same thing. FWIW, Dutch.