I am a "X-MOA" shooter ...
kansas last edited by kansas
When some one says "I am a 1 MOA shooter" ... I wonder what that means exactly?
Does that mean they never, ever shoot a group with size (MAX ( center hole to center hole) distance ) > 1 MOA ? Or does it mean 97% of the time? Or 95% or 90% ? I guess everyone has their own idea.
For a given 10 round string, 90% sounds reasonable, but for 10,000 rounds, 90% would mean you could be outside your tolerance 1,000 times and that sounds like a lot !!
I guess for me right now, I am going for 90% first round "hit" ... whatever that might be. Whether that is the face of a 12x24 inch silhouette at 600yds or a half inch dot at 50yds. If I get to that point, then I will move the goal posts :)
rr2241tx last edited by
Likely means they are on the extreme left side of Orkan's graph of confidence vs experience.
@kansas said in I am a "X-MOA" shooter ...:
I guess everyone has their own idea.
It means something different for everyone. That's why it's important to qualify their statements by having them explain what they mean, if you're talking about something that requires that knowledge.
The measure that matters most is your own honesty in applying the test to yourself. If you lie to yourself, you will leave improvement laying on the table which could otherwise be seized if you were honest.
What if a person were given a rifle/optic/ammo combo that would never throw a shot? How much would that person's "MOA" rating improve? Drastically for some, less so for others. If you're talking about a competitive environment in which you are speaking about your capabilities regarding being an "X MOA shooter," then perhaps the targets should do the talking? In a situation where you are not competing against that particular shooter, then do their claims really matter?
I've been in situations where shooters were speaking very recklessly about their capabilities. Out came the dot drills and the truth of things were revealed quickly. Rarely are there more impacted dots on their page than mine. However, nothing was solved. That person always has many reasons why it went the way it did.
I've found that if I cannot change their opinion with conversation, then I cannot change their opinion by beating them in a game of skill either. However, when they use my method, and beat their previous self... that is when their opinions shift.
As for the definition of measuring someone's skill or vetting if their capability lines up with their claims of their capabilities, I would suggest you leave people with their illusions... as they can not hurt you. Such is the way of illusions. Per the definition, they are not real. Point in fact, the more grand their illusion, the easier time you'll have challenging them to a game of skill in which their illusions will be destroyed in front of others. Illusions of your own capabilities however, can definitely hurt you. If you make those illusions known, then you will be the one laid bare. Possibly at great cost to your ego.
You've seen a tremendous number of my shots recorded. To what level in MOA would you rate my ability? What "MOA of shooter" am I?
rr2241tx last edited by
I would not like my chances if I was standing 1,000 yards away with a gusting full value crosswind and you were taking one shot. My experience says that the vast majority of blowhards who would claim to be a 1 MOA Shooter are closer to being a 24 Hour of Angle shooter who managed to wobble across the center of their target once in their whole life and then immediately packed up their rifle and framed the target.
@rr2241tx said in I am a "X-MOA" shooter ...:
1 MOA Shooter are closer to being a 24 Hour of Angle shooter
hahaha! That squeezed a chuckle out of me out loud. Bravo sir.
kansas last edited by
Aye, yes, now I realize, I was asking so I could set precise goals for myself. :D I live pretty far from any body, and no one around here shoots much except for deer season or critter control. I'm the only crazy one in my county to my knowledge. My #1 shooting buddy lives about 150 miles away and we get together 4-6 times per year. So, I don't much care what most other people are doing. Now, this board is an exception as the standard of "truth" is almost infinitely higher than on any other board, so that's why I'm here now. I finally detected the "silence" on "Sniper Center" for example, I came over here and realized this is where "everyone" went :D
So back to my goals.
Unfortunately, true mathematical precision is not possible, because, for instance, we cannot measure EXACTLY to within ZERO margin of error, where a bullet hit. We live in the real world, not the pure math world (I majored in pure math and did my graduate work in both pure and applied, so I know the difference between these worlds :) ).
But we can get "close enough for engineering work" (as we used to say).
So I think I will count the bullet as hitting where the center of the bullet hit, to the best of my ability to measure it.
So did I hit the dot? If the center of the bullet hole is inside the outer edge of the dot, then yes, otherwise no. Even though many "near misses" might have cut the dot. So, I think that will be my convention.
And for scoring "rings" if the center of the bullet hole is inside the "ring" then the inner score will be tallied, otherwise the outer score.
For steel, if the center of the bullet hits the steel, then we will see its mark on the steel. Right now, I repaint the steel after every group.
But, I can see that it will be useful sometimes to declare that I am shooting at the "face" of the IPSC-D steel, which is a 6 inch square I think (I didn't measure it yet). That would be a useful target, so I don't have to deploy as much new steel. I'd rather spend the money on ammo :) ... so then the center of the bullet strike must be within the 6 inch square, low hits where the center of the bullet is below 6 inches will not count if the "face" is the target.
So I can make up my own conventions. But, I guess I was wondering if there were already "standards" in use for the older/regulars on this board. If so, I could consider adopting those.
But the other concept, is that, I am not trying to get to 0.25 MOA this week. I'm not even sure I can get to 1 MOA, by my definitions this year. But, I think I am adopting that as my goal, at least for prone. For tripod standing, I think I am pretty close to 2 MOA, so I think there, the goal will be 1.5 MOA. And when I say 1 MOA for prone and 1.5 for tripod, I should mean in all conditions, day or night, rain or shine. With say 35+ MPH winds excepted and for tripod, probably under 770yds for standing. For tripod sitting, I can try for 1.25 MOA.
So to go for those objectives, I will need to rethink my targets. But I have a neighbor who can make me some steel for less than I can buy it. But his steel will be rectangular, so I will have to give him dimensions with the same area as the circular target will be. That said, I saw some low prices on AR500 circles over the memorial day weekend.
Once I reach the above goals, I can move the goal posts, but I'd like to go for a goal I can reach in a foreseeable amount of time, and then set a new goal etc. Up to this point, for the past 5 years, TBH, I've been more focused on the SEE, MOVE part of SEE, MOVE, SHOOT (and hit what I am aiming at). And I've gotten to the point now, where for what there is to see and for the ways there are to move out here, I can do those things to a certain level, day or night, rain or shine. Now, finally time to work a bit more on the "Shoot and hit what I am aiming at" part :)
@kansas said in I am a "X-MOA" shooter ...:
I guess I was wondering if there were already "standards" in use for the older/regulars on this board. If so, I could consider adopting those.
Well there are some conventions in place. For instance, if you tag the black on a dot drill, it's considered a hit. However if you find that convention too dishonest for your liking, you can change it to something more suitable... just as you've already done. I like a shot hit better if it's half a bullet in the black, as you specified. However, I'll not look for excuses to savor a good performance if one is present. Take a dot drill I posted earlier which was shot with my 6 dasher for instance. I had a large quantity of extremely solid hits. Entire bullet inside the black, type of hits. So I'll go ahead and treat myself with enough respect to call a hit when there was a hit in light of the overall performance being in line with excellence. However, I'll not call those "barely touching" dots a hit when the rest of my performance on the remaining shots was not worthy of such consideration.
After all, if someone takes exception to my own estimation of my performance... they can and do have every opportunity to challenge me. If my presentation isn't honest in their view, then it can be "pistols at dawn" if they want. If I've been dishonest in my representation of my skill and someone wishes to demonstrate they are the better... I'll often take the opportunity to test myself. Rarely will my ego suffer for it, and it's just another opportunity to ensure my mouth is right with the rest of me.
The only real convention here is progress. True progress. The definition by which you measure your improvement is irrelevant as long as the improvement actually exists and is not an illusion. So whatever "scoring" mechanism you impart upon yourself, just make sure it scales well and allows you to collect data which can be used. Apply the rules you've set in place evenly, and you'll often find whatever system you have will allow you to gauge your improvement handily.
In the area of pure fundamental skill, I've found nothing better than 1/2" dots at 100yds. In the area of long range skill, a hit is a hit. Target size and conditions will sway my definition of "success" at various ranges.
bigfoot last edited by
Aim small, miss small.