quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
The title says rifle accuracy, not rifle marksmanship. The most important factor in rifle accuracy or probably less ambiguous would be a rifle's accuracy is the barrel, period, again.

Again, NO RIFLE IS ACCURATE BY ITSELF. IT REQUIRES A SHOOTER AS PART OF ITS FUNCTIONING SYSTEM. AND IT WILL BE NO MORE ACCURATE THAN THE SHOOTER CAN MAKE IT IN HIS HANDS.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN ANY RIFLE, PISTOL, SHOTGUN, OR BB GUN'S ACCURACY IS THE SHOOTER'S ABILITY!!!!

I see individual marksmanship[human performance], as a different thing to, individual rifle accuracy[machine performance].
Why?

A lousy shooter does not alter the inherit accuracy - grouping ability/potential of a proven accurate rifle.
That rifle will still put the bullet precisely where the operator [good/or bad], aims the rifle.
Hence a lousy group from such rifle is not bcause the rifle is inaccurate, but because the shooter is lacking in skill.

An inherently accurate rifle will print a lousy group simply because of the lousy operator,
and An inaccurate rifle does not produce a tight group, just by relying on a persons great marksmanship skills.

Modern hunting rifles can deliver very fine accuracy, as long as one can match it to a shooter with capabilities
good enough to be able exploit what the rifle is truly capable of delivering.

A lousy shot[and subsequent lousy shot placement or grouping], does not necessarily equate to a rifle being inaccurate.

I understand fully what your are saying. But any accuracy, inherent or otherwise, depends on the rifle performing its function, which is to be shot.

If it is not being shot, it has no more or less inherent accuracy than any other awkward club...and probably less than a better balanced club such as a baseball bat.

The point really is, no rifle has any accuracy unless it is being shot. That requires a shooter. and, the shooter's skill is the primary, most important, factor in EVERY functioning rifle.

Sophistry or word games don't provide any detour around that basic fact.

quote:

But any accuracy, inherent or otherwise, depends on the rifle performing its function, which is to be shot.

Just because a rifle can send a bullet down range, would a good marksman be able to make consistent shots? If that was the case, the AK-47 would be the only rifle needed for long range sniper work. A man limited by his equipment, is still just a limited man.

AC,

off course the human factor is of importance in the operation of any hand operated weapon,

I am sure even when primitive man first started throwing basic poor design spears, he eventually learnt better throwing techniques in order
to get the most out of the basic weapon he had...Man then eventually discovered that he could also overcome his own human limitations
by also developing spears or arrows that flew more accurately/consistently/further/better penetration etc, despite him putting in the
same [or less] amount of physical discipline or input,...than he did with the old inferior designs that he struggled more with.

Man discovered that the human could only physically input so much[that he has his limitations],
so man turned to improved design & technology to better overcome his own human limitations in other areas.

I believe improved weapons over the ages have sure helped man achieve more & easier success while hunting or doing battle with enemies,
....to the point where today, manufacturing technology allows us to produce things so capable and precise, that the flawed human operator
input factor, actually becomes a hindrance to the devices full potential.

Many average hunters could not provide the consistent skill required to allow a modern precision hunting rifle to deliver what its truly
capable of in accuracy.

Photographic shooting is another example,
the human can only hold a camera so steady, manually advance the film only so fast, and adjust the manual lens only as fast as humanly possible.
The basic monopod or tripod helps him immensely, in keeping a steady camera, and other more advanced technology that help humans overcome their
personal limitations when trying to achieve high quality photo shots are:
high speed films, single/multi-point auto focus,auto exposure,electronic optical image stabilisation, rapid electronic auto film advancers allowing many frames per second,

Such advanced camera tech. definitely helped humans [both pro and novice] achieve fantastic photo results much easier and much more consistently,
than was capable with the older technology camera gear.
Photographers with modern equip., can produce superior and/or consistently better results, whilst requiring far less human effort or discipline.

A modern camera or modern rifle does not care if it sits in its box and does not get used, but a human might get upset or frustrated if he happened to forget to bring an
important piece of equipment thats sitting at home ,instead of in his wildernness camp.

Such machines assist humans much more than humans help the machines, and thats exactly the reason they were made, to assist humans.
NO accurate rifle has any need of a human, But humans do need precision rifles to perform precision shooting tasks.
Humans simply facilitate the weapon into producing the accuracy it it inherently well capable of, and often the human itself falls short.

I guess my point is that the best shooter in the world is not going to step up to the bench with just any old 1881 Argentine Mauser and out shoot the 40+ shooters there with their top-shelf guns. At least he gave them a fighting chance!

True story.

Air rifle manufacturers were tasked to make an entry level competiton gun to be sold at a price of under $200.

Manufacturer A chose a Lothar Walther barrel and built a no frills gun around it that only allowed LOP changes with spacers.

Manufacturer B chose to build a very ergonomic, highly adjustable gun around a plain old barrel.

Although B was very comfortable you could not score deep into the black at all.

You could shoot .177 nominal size groups in the X-ring all day long with A.

Manufacturer B eventually (5-10 years)switched to Lothar Walther barrels when the price was raised to keeping them under $500 and still be legal in the entry level class.

World records are broken all the time on forums such as this--I think the key is a good keyboard.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Man then eventually discovered that he could also overcome his own human limitations
by also developing spears or arrows that flew more accurately/consistently/further/better penetration etc.,.... Such machines assist humans much more than humans help the machines, and thats exactly the reason they were made, to assist humans.

NO accurate rifle has any need of a human, But humans do need precision rifles to perform precision shooting tasks.

Humans simply facilitate the weapon into producing the accuracy it it inherently well capable of, and often the human itself falls short.

So you are telling me that a rifle is inherently accurate when it isn't being used?

A rifle is nothing but a complex lump when it isn't being used. At that point it is neither accurate nor inaccurate. And no spear is more accurate than a brick when it is not being used.

Also obvious is that a more skilled spearman delivers far better results with his spear than a one who is unskilled.

We are playing word games here, obviously. The point remains that regardless how well made, the most important thing in any shooter's quest for accuracy from HIS rifles is how well the shouter can shoot.

The degree of that acquired skill is what allows him to get the best out of his rifle, regardless how well it may be made. And acquiring that skill is far more important than a new barrel, a better trigger, or anything else someone wants to spend their money on to allow them to shoot better. Accuracy is a measure of what any given shooter
can actually do with his rifle.

Equipment is only part of the equation. Everything in the equation contributes to that performance...quality of parts, quality of assembly, quality of fit, etc. But the single biggest contributor to the actual, demonstrable, achievement of accuracy (no matter how measured), is the ability of the shooter.

No rifle can overcome the weaknesses of the shooter, while a good shooter will always contribute to the actual accuracy results obtained from ANY rifle.



.

Let me try this another way.


Say we have assembled the very best bench rest rifle now possible, with the best of every component now made. This rifle will shoot 5-shot groups in the .0's at 100 yards. We know it will do that because it has shot numerous groups in the "zeros" for its owner.

Take it to a regional or national match. Let every shooter there shoot 5 groups with it. Did they all shoot a least one group in the zeros?

No, a very few did, most didn't. Why didn't they all achieve the known inherent accuracy of the rifle? Because the shooters, all experienced BR competitors, have different levels of ability, i.e. different amounts of learned group-shooting skill.

Now ask yourself? what is the most important component of that shooting system?

An accurate rifle can be set in a machine rest and do .0's
or
An accurate rifle can he handled by a highly capable human and do .0's

But a human cannot shoot .0,s without a rifle, nor can he do it with an inaccurate rifle thats not capable of .0's

Without the appropriate precision rifle [in a machine rest or human hands] .0's just won't happen.

Humans cannot make inaccurate rifles, accurate, just by employing their fantastic human shooting skills.
Its imperative for humans to first have an accurate rifle is they are pursuing tight groups.

Rifles dont care for humans, and rifles dont care if they are not used.
Rifles dont have a purpose in mind for humans, but humans definitely have a purpose in mind /need for precision rifles.

So if humans need precision rifles,and rifles have Zero personal need of humans,
then which would be more important to which?

Modern rifles like modern fighter jets, are now so capable in performance, thats it can be better to let machines/computers operate/guide them,
since the human more often falls short of being able to getting the best out of modern equipment.


Do you honestly believe that a direct human manual operator behind an automatic 50cal, would be able to place shots are accurately and consistently

As this computer controlled Arrows 50cal ...?

-

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
An accurate rifle can be set in a machine rest and do .0's
or
An accurate rifle can he handled by a highly capable human and do .0's

But a human cannot shoot .0,s without a rifle, nor can he do it with an inaccurate rifle thats not capable of .0's

It sounds as if maybe you have no personal knowledge of shooting rifles from machine rests.

Even in machine rests, accuracy is dependent on the skill of the operator. In actual benchrest competition, the two most accurately shot kinds of rifles shoot in classes called "Unrestricted" and "Heavy Varmint". (Called Unrestricted and just plain "Heavy" in cast bullet benchrest.)

Shooters in the heavy class are restricted to rifles weighing no more than 13.5 pounds or 14 pounds, depending on the rules of the association sanctioning the match. Additional restrictions apply restricting barrel diameter, taper, balance point, etc. And Heavy rifles have to be fired while being held, aimed, and the triggers pulled by the shooter.

Their rests are also restricted so that the rifle must be removable by lifting it straight up (their bags cannot curve around the stock so as to prevent that), and the rear bag cannot be attached to the front bag in any way.

Rifles in the Unrestricted class have their weight restricted too. It must weigh no more than one man can lift unassisted onto the bench. There are no restrictions regarding barrel diameter or taper. The rifles can be fired from a machine rest (and most are) in actual competition. The shooter does not even have to touch the trigger, as such rifles are usually fired by a cable release such as photographers use. And there is no gunstock required either.

Yet still the best of the shooters of the hand-held "heavy "rifles often outshoot most of the shooters firing Unrestricted rifles from machine rests in any given match.

Why is that? It is because the best of heavy rifle shooters are more skilled at shooting their heavy rifles than most of the unrestricted class shooters are at shooting their machine-rested rifles. The Heavy class shooters know the accuracy of their rifles depends on them. Most of the Unrestricted Class shooters depend on their machine rests instead of their own shooting skills to provide the accuracy.

And of course the top skilled Unrestricted Class shooters regularly beat their less skilled bretheren in that Class too.



The same is true also of the people who do the pressure testing of rifles and cartridges. Believe it or not, skilled folks operating the pressure testing tools (whether CUP or Piezzo) get far more consistent, more accurate readings than do the less skilled testers.

The human element always determines the accuracy of machines actually in use, including rifles. Just ask any top machinist. Automated machines have, and work to, tolerances. An experienced master machinist can make a part to ZERO tolerances. It may take him a while and several tries to make such a zero-tolerance part, but he can achieve it. And it gets surprisingly easier the more he thinks and practices doing it. Just like rifle shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
The human element always determines the accuracy of machines actually in use, including rifles. Just ask any top machinist. Automated machines have, and work to, tolerances. An experienced master machinist can make a part to ZERO tolerances. It may take him a while and several tries to make such a zero-tolerance part, but he can achieve it. And it gets surprisingly easier the more he thinks and practices doing it. Just like rifle shooting.

And when the human gets frustrated with constantly trying to reproduce his precision component to consistent standards at the rate he requires,
He will decide to use other know how,...he will employ computer controlled technology to make components to the same tolerance,
but much faster and much more consistently.

I will pose the question again,

which do you honestly think can fire an automatic 50cal more accurately and consistently;

- a human manual operator behind a 50 cal, OR the computer managed ARROWS 50cal system???

You think with enough practice behind a manual operated 50cal gun, that you could consistently outperform the ARROWS 50cal?

IF so, you need to give FN a call ,and tell them that you have a skilled human that has made their computer managed firing system,
obsolete....next thing you will have to do is supply them enough super freak humans, that can take the place of the machines they have produced.

IF humans are always better at things than machines, then the Phalanx system on navy ships,
would have humans steering and directing the gun by manual means.....Try that, and you will loose the war very quick.

IF one is wealthy enough, Dillon can supply a mini-gun installation to protect ones private compound, that, after pre-senting it parameters and pre-loading the ammunition store.....requires no human operation of the weapon, except activating/turning the system on.
It will acquire and follow targets based on movement and/or heat signature, anytime day or night, and it will do far quicker and more reliably,
than any human could, if put behind a mini gun.

And Trax, I will give you the same answer again. Humans always determine the accuracy of any machine.

All machines which are used to manufacture other machines have "tolerances" in their own construction and cannot operate more accurately than those inherent "tolerances" allow them to, even if run by computers.

Machines without humans operating them cannot be and are not as accurate as a human can run them, if the human is willing to take the time and knows what he/she is doing. That is primarily because humans don't have built in tolerances which they cannot overcome. Machines do have built in tolerances and they cannot overcome them without human help during their operation. Highly skilled human operators can compensate for the machine's tolerances and eliminate their effects.

My dad was an aerospace machinist building the Polaris and Poseidon missiles, and I made aircraft parts for Parker Aircraft; this isn't just "logical theory".

So, anyhow, I am done with this argument with you. You believe whatever you want to. I have done and seen too much in this world to agree with you.

A couple of last thoughts. People build real machines. Please let me know when machiness start building real people. Also please let me know the next time you take a laser-aimed, computer controlled rifle or shotgun out to shoot with you.

Have a nice life.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The most important factor in rifle accuracy is a barrel.The most important factor in shooting a rifle accurately is the shooters skill and knowledge(or their ability-their ability to hold the rifle with the less movement).

I think the OP's right. Even if you have a great barrel and it's bedded poorly, it probably won't shoot very well. But a rifle off the shelf that hasn't been tinkered with will shoot better for a good shooter than a not so good one. Of course the same is true of the much tinkered with rifle. I don't think anyone position shoots much anymore, make you a better shooter to learn it. And a 2# trigger that gets jerked is still jerked! Used to practice trigger control off hand. Have someone balance a quarter on the barrel right behind the sight and dry fire without knocking off the quarter. Trigger control is a must to shoot good.

And while the thread is still open, there are a few more things I guess I should type out even though I hate typing.

Regards to mini-guns in aircraft....the mini-gun is not the weapon, the aircraft (including the pilot/gunner) is.

The mini-gun is simply the electric motor, barrels, magazine(s) and sighting system with which the projectiles are propelled. It is analogous to the barrel, action, and sights of a rifle or any other gun. The same is true of any other "Gatling" type gun, whether .30, .50, 20m/m, 30 m/m, or whatever.

The aircraft itself is the equivalent of the stock on a rifle. It is the device which allows the user to place the gun in a position to obtain a "lock" onto the target, and retain that lock long enough to fire an effective shot or shots.

Miniguns are not, in the strictest sense, very accurate anyway. That is one reason why typical ones fire 100 rounds or so per second (6,000 rounds per minute for the typical 6-barreled examples). The high rate of fire enables them to put a cone of projectiles out there much like a shotgun does in the hands of a bird hunter.

Accuracy-wise they are pretty much the current epitome of "spray & pray".

They are not single shots, or even relatively slow rate of fire single-barreled machine guns, because they are not accurate enough to reliably do their job with a single round or even 10 rounds per second.

Without a pilot (either inside the plane or operating by remote controls) to put the whole weapon (the pilot, aircraft, and its firing mechanism's) into the proper firing position and keep it there long enough for the gun to score hits on the target, the Minigun is just like any other improperly used gun, pretty much useless for its intended work. It is only as good as the skills of the user.

And like all other guns, it is the skills of the user which ultimately give it enough accuracy to get the job done.

That's why the U.S. spends so much more time than most other countries in training its fighter pilots. With their skills at higher levels than most of their opponents, they usually let more of our foes do the dying for their countries in airplanes, and fewer of us.

Another function of the firer is to make sure it is the right target which is shot. Aside from all the electronic friend/foe identification electronics, it is still the shooter's responsibility to make sure the shot goes where it is needed and justified. That's part of the shooter's responsibility with hand-held guns too...if hunting in the South where ONE Pintail per day is the limit for that breed of duck...or if target shooting in a match where an X you shoot on your neighbor's target still counts as a Miss in your score, human control is still the overriding mechanism for accurate shooting.

AC is 100% right, the guy that wins the Wimbeldon Cup is the best shooter on that given day. For the most part, all of the rifles involved are capable of cleaning the target. The shooter is the most important factor. A rifle is worthless without a competent rifleman.

I don't watch racing, but I would have to believe that most of the cars on the track during the Daytona 500 are capable of winning the race, it's the driver and his team that makes the difference between #1 and #2. Otherwise, all any of us would have to do is buy the best equipment and win competitions.

This is getting boring, next please.

A super accurate rifle can build confidence and make one a better shooter. Looking through the scope with a positive attitude vs. feeling dpressed because of flyers makes a big difference. The rifle can build that confidence.

ar corey;

You make the assumption that fliers are being casued by the rifle/ammunition, and not the rifleman. That is often a proven fallacy.

The best way to determine if your rifle is adequately accurate and precise is to let a known shooter fire it under the conditions you expect it to perform under. If that shooter makes a nice tight group and is within the parameter for the game/purpose, then bad shots are the "indian", and not the arrow.

Of course, a precision rifle with 10000 rounds down is probably going to throw fliers and show wide groups compared to a newer precision barrel, as that barrel is at the end of its life span, same goes for poor quality bullet construction, poor reloading techniques and finally, poor/ inconsistent marksmanship ability.

Simply adding more or less face pressure on a rifle moves groups or shots, varying sling tension, hand position or stock shoulder positioning all move shots....

This is why benchresters barely touch their rifles and why across the course/position shooters practice position techniques as much as we shoot....

Minute of critter is as relative as the 2 MOA 10 ring for NRA and CMP High power or 50m SB, but groups in the tenths or hundredth's are the realm of static shooters and static rifles.

Proper wind & light doping probably would cut the average group down a bit, but how many of us even consider the wind when checking our pet rifles and loads at 100 yd/m? A 5 MPH variable crosswind will move a HV bullet out of the group as surely as a flinch will.

It has always been the number one principle in the triangle of shooting, the shooter, the rifle and the bullet/cartridge. A failure in any one causes a miss, so to speak. The shooter pulls the shot, the bullet load is flawed or the rifle is dirty and there are a multitude of other factors involved.

+1 There is no real argument to discuss here, we all agree!

Alberta, in a sence your correct..I, also, have had for years a trapper mod. 94 30-30, and a mod. 94 Win. SRC in 25-35, both have pitted up barrels and the 30-30 looks like the inside of a tramp steamers smoke stack, full of pits and missing chunks..both barrels are good in that the 30-30 will shoot an inch at 100 yards all day long every time with iron sights, and the 25-35 will do the same at 2 to 2.5 inches, its a good barrel also. just not pretty inside..I have owned several old double rifles that shot great at 50 or 75 yards with cordite pitted barrels...

Pits, rust, wear, and gobules in a slow velocity barrel many times have little effect on how the guns shoot, but of course, sometimes it does..

At any rate I needed to qualify a "good barrel" as one that shoots good regardless of condition...

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Regards to mini-guns in aircraft....the mini-gun is not the weapon, the aircraft (including the pilot/gunner) is.

the MG is not the weapon? ...WTF???

To the best of my knowledge, aircraft frames are fitted with [and modified to accept].. various kinds of weapons systems.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

The mini-gun is simply the electric motor, barrels, magazine(s) and sighting system with which the projectiles are propelled. It is analogous to the barrel, action, and sights of a rifle or any other gun. The same is true of any other "Gatling" type gun, whether .30, .50, 20m/m, 30 m/m, or whatever.

why is the modern PHALANX system computer guided-controlled and not manually operated,
like anti-aircraft weapons of WW2?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
And Trax, I will give you the same answer again. Humans always determine the accuracy of any machine.

humans currently build ultra-modern computer-lazer guided machines to specifically outperform the antiquated manual physical input capability
of humans during the operation of weapons. - Physical human input 'fly by wire' is obsolete to current automated laser guided technology.

I asked this question before, but you seem to be avoiding the answer;

which do you honestly think can fire an automatic 50cal more accurately and consistently;

- a human manual operator behind a 50 cal, OR the computer managed-lazer guided [1100 RPM] ARROWS 50cal system???

do you believe a human could fire a quick succession of 50cal rounds as accurately & consistently as the ARROWS?

Do you think a human could manually track/stay on target and rapidly fire [with his shouldered 50cal],
as accurately and consistently as the FN-ARROWS, ...from a stationary position OR high speed moving vehicle?

quote:

the Minigun is just like any other improperly used gun, pretty much useless for its intended work.
It is only as good as the skills of the user.

That why Dillon can provide a computer controlled Minigun installation that outperforms and largely overcomes the various
limitations of a human-manually operated weapon.
Such advanced computer tech. approach works for Dillon as it does for the larger Phalanx and FN ARROWS.

But since you know so much, you need to contact Dillon, FN-ARROWS and Raytheon[Phalanx],
and tell them that their computer controlled weapon technology is inferior to a manually-human operated version of their weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by HPMaster:
ar corey;

You make the assumption that fliers are being casued by the rifle/ammunition, and not the rifleman. That is often a proven fallacy.

The best way to determine if your rifle is adequately accurate and precise is to let a known shooter fire it under the conditions you expect it to perform under. If that shooter makes a nice tight group and is within the parameter for the game/purpose, then bad shots are the "indian", and not the arrow.

Of course, a precision rifle with 10000 rounds down is probably going to throw fliers and show wide groups compared to a newer precision barrel, as that barrel is at the end of its life span, same goes for poor quality bullet construction, poor reloading techniques and finally, poor/ inconsistent marksmanship ability.

Simply adding more or less face pressure on a rifle moves groups or shots, varying sling tension, hand position or stock shoulder positioning all move shots....

This is why benchresters barely touch their rifles and why across the course/position shooters practice position techniques as much as we shoot....

Minute of critter is as relative as the 2 MOA 10 ring for NRA and CMP High power or 50m SB, but groups in the tenths or hundredth's are the realm of static shooters and static rifles.

Proper wind & light doping probably would cut the average group down a bit, but how many of us even consider the wind when checking our pet rifles and loads at 100 yd/m? A 5 MPH variable crosswind will move a HV bullet out of the group as surely as a flinch will.

Since you know what Br shooters are using can you tell me about this rifle

300WSM build on Bat M action,Bartlein 1/10 twist barrel @ 32" with barrel tuner,10x60 March scope and Master Class custom stock fitted to ride the bags. Almost sound like what a BR shooter be using 1000yd match.

Some how this copy of BR rifle won Berger SW Long Range National F-Class open division this year. Also this year at Raton Palma open looked like a BR match.

the above are score matches were groups don't matter and your classification is based on that so not really sure why your trying to compare the two. You guys LR live up to the old saying "can hit the tire but not the hubcab"