Here is a 30 shot group with the UMC ammo, at 100 yards. Notice that if it were a 3 shot group, it would be 1/4 MOA (that is why 3 shot groups are BS).
Any details on the rifle you were using?
I was under the impression this caliber was mainly for CQB
And unstable at farther distances. Seems I was wrong and now
see my money leaving my wallet…
Can you post a quarter for scale?
That double cluster on the right(two groups of two) would be covered by a quarter by referencing the .30 hole size as a guide.
If that’s a standard AR barrel, with whatever optic from a rest with “ball” ammo, I would say, good to go.
It would only be a 1/4 MOA group if you fired three consecutive shots into a 1/4 MOA group. Anything beyond that is speculation.
That is my point. All 3 shot groups are speculation and worthless for comparison purposes.
You can take the three farthest shots or 3 closest shots from this 30 shot group, and either could have been a 3 shot group. That is no more speculation than if you fired three shots consecutively because the true distribution pattern does not start to emerge until about 30 shots.
In my experience, umc ammo is inconsistent. Add the fact that the gun was not in a ransom rest to eliminate shooter variables and your findings have little merit; other than “you shot that group with that gun on that day.” That combo may have been a 4moa combo, but it’s very possible that the gun shoots 2moa or better.
For 30 rounds? WTF are you talking about?
That probably is true for a lot of the cheap-as-possible UMC. I’m guessing you haven’t been following the 300BLK discussion as Robert has made it clear that the 300BLK UMC ammo is being made to a fairly high quality standard in all respects.
I don’t follow. Shooter variables would make the group worse, not better. It’s not as if the shooter can know the variables for each cartridge to compensate for them and somehow make the group better than it would have been from a machine rest. To me this looks like an illustration of “this gun and ammo was at least this good on one day.”
BTW, while it’s been a long time since I took statistics, I vaguely remember being taught that depending on the distribution of the data, the data set didn’t become statistically significant until, on average, 30 test points.
My point was that the “three shot groups are bs” statement doesn’t hold water. He said that if it were a 3 shot group that it could have been 1/4 moa, which makes no sense unless 3 consecutive shots were that close. ( I dont see numbering on the target)
Agreed, my standard for “accuracy of rifle” is five, five shot groups. Granted, doing my part is the hard part, and I don’t actually know the accuracy of my rifles, though I do speculate.
Nice group. Sorry if I missed this, but what is the diameter of the red circle? Looks like ~3" based on the size of the holes.
Three shot “groups” don’t tell us enough to try to predict where the next shot will land. The point of shooting groups is to have an idea where your shots will go, with the group size being the margin of error.
Because the dispersion is random, any three of those shots put together could be your three shot group. Or to put it another way he could shoot three shot groups until he randomly got three touching, or got three of the shots furthest apart.
These could be used to show how great or terrible the rifle shoots depending on which one he posted, but all of those three shot groups will fall within the thirty round group if you overlay them.
[QUOTE=rsilvers;1173036]That is my point. All 3 shot groups are speculation and worthless for comparison purposes.
You can take the three farthest shots or 3 closest shots from this 30 shot group, and either could have been a 3 shot group. That is no more speculation than if you fired three shots consecutively because the true distribution pattern does not start to emerge until about 30 shots.[/QUOTE]
By the portion above highlighted: Do you mean to say that the rifle has stabilized by 30 shots, or that the rifle will show itself (warts and all) or that this dispersion pattern will begin to repeat itself?
I am taking your statement to mean the worst precision/accuracy result will have been exposed by the completion of 30 rounds for the rate of fire and ambient conditions. Hope I am close…
Thank you
looks good in my book and im blind…
Todd is correct, as usual.
It’s not really the worst, just the truth. Once the number of rounds is enough to actually be a good sample size (that number is not 3) you know the next round you fire will fall within it.
I am in total agreement with this perspecitive regarding the above group.
So few of the general shooting public realize that any first shot, or any shot really, can be within the area of a 30 to 100+ shot group (30 just starts to fill out the distribution area).
Also I may be the first manufacturer to ever release a 30 shot ammo test group. No one else will, because they are terrified that people will lack the knowledge to interpret it.
Instead they fire a dozen 3-shot groups and show the single best one, which I find offensive. Know what else I find offensive? Accuracy guarantees (universally based on 3 shot groups).
The only accuracy guarantee I was impressed by how it was written up was the M24. It was something like average mean radius of 5, 10 shot groups at 200 yards.
Mr Silvers, I will be in Bill Wisemans booth at SHOT, please stop by and chat if time permits