.0077" -- Smallest 5-Shot Group In History

[rwj]

As @rjtfroggy posted above, I’ll likely never be able to shoot a group small enough to challenge a record. But I have had experience as a RSO in USPSA and having to use overlays to score targets where shooters would argue a “double” hit instead a “miss” as called. Using two overlays it was fairly easy to ascertain whether there were actually two hits or not. I can’t imagine trying to ascertain multiple hits that are offset by less than 0.010”! How is this level of precision achieved on a piece of torn paper?

 

[M-61]

How is this level of precision achieved on a piece of torn paper?

And in McMillans case, a torn piece of paper handled by HOW many people? The hole didn’t get smaller.

 

[xr650rRider]

And in McMillans case, a torn piece of paper handled by HOW many people? The hole didn’t get smaller.

https://www.mtcshooting.com/more-views/

 

[jackieschmidt]

I would be very interested to know how that rifle was built. How it was chambered. Etc.

Would You also be interested in knowing that the shooter came in dead last in that yardage.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Would You also be interested in knowing that the shooter came in dead last in that yardage.

I kept up with him that season though and he did well, day in and day out. One bad shot can certainly ruin a day though, even with a tiny group thrown in. Records are about the stars aligning but aggs do tell a bigger story. You can't look at anyone's single match agg and draw much from that either though. Stinnett shot that rifle very well. One day or even one record doesn't tell the whole story.

You seem to be making a point of this. I know of no one who has shot both this cartridge and a 30BR as much as I have for comparison. In the end, they are both excellent, so flip a coin. The better barrel will win out. Up here, southern ky, a 30 Major agg'd phenominally well for me but with a little faster powder than Stinnett was using down there. I've seen h4198 shoot great in it though, just a PITA to get it all in there. Before you ask, a 30 Stewart is essentially a 30 Major. IIRC, .015 difference and they went the longest route possible to get there, starting with 220 brass before finally realizing Lapua Grendel brass was the shortest and best route to the same destination. They had already done gages and the chamber so they ended up pushing the shoulder back .015 on Grendel brass before setting the record. All of that and a buck fifty will get ya a cheap cup of coffee, though. Bottom line is a 50 year old small group record was never broken by a 6PPC, but a Grendel case necked up to 30 cal. That's the bottom line. Kudos to him for it. Amazing group, regardless of anything else.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Would You also be interested in knowing that the shooter came in dead last in that yardage.

I meant the 222.

 

[D Coots]

The .0077 group is special and may hold for a long time. In group shooting the 30Br won a battle that day, but the 6PPC wins the wars, rules the roost, and owns the records.

 

[butchlambert]

Jackie, remember your agg that should be the agg record! I have pictures of those targets.

 

[Rat Rifle]

https://www.mtcshooting.com/more-views/

After reading this, I’m wondering if the McMillan target isn’t the true, real record?
Once the target was fiddled with, damaged, there was no going back.
If it really was a”0”, then it was a record that could never be broken.
And that would make the .0077” impressive, but “MOOT”

 

[jamesdmock]

Mr Blubbers, I didn't realize this would bunch up your panties. You and James can get together and make your own rules.

Butch, you are the one who cast doubts about other posters math skills. What you did was expose your ignorance of statistical facts.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Butch, I remember well. But, I go by want the official records committee measured. I still hold the smallest 5 group aggregate as measured by the NBRSA Records Committee that was not shot by a 6PPC. The agg was .148. At that time it missed the record by .006 inch.

What was just as satisfying was I also won the 200 yard and the Grand Agg.

That of course was with my 30BR.

Two weeks later I shot a 250 25x at Lake Charles with the exact same combo.

Sometimes all of the planets line up and things go right.

How about posting those targets. I cut the groups out and attached them to the nice letter that the head of the Records Committee sent to me

Jackie, remember your agg that should be the agg record! I have pictures of those targets.

 

[sw282]

The previous record was the "untouchable" .009" group shot by Mac McMillan in 1973:

View attachment 1266141

Mac’s .009″ group was the “Holy Grail” of rifle accuracy. This .009″ record was considered by many to be unbreakable, a record that would “stand for all time”. Well, it took 40 years, but Mike Stinnett finally broke Mac’s record with an even smaller group in 2013. Stinnett’s NBRSA record .0077″ group now stands as the smallest 100-yard group ever shot in registered benchrest competition.

Here is the record certificate originally issued to Mac McMillan. We've been told Mac was shooting a .222 Remington:

View attachment 1266142

222Rem was, is, and always K I N G

 

[jimmymac]

With all the sniping, you’d think it was the middle of the winter! The weather is nice. Go try to shoot a record.

 

[butchlambert]

Butch, you are the one who cast doubts about other posters math skills. What you did was expose your ignorance of statistical facts.

Statistical facts? You have 4 people measure the groups to 3 places and then they are combined and divided by 4. The answer came out in 4 places. Am I wrong?
James, maybe you're talking about the new math. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 any more does it, chuckle chuckle.

 

[Evan]

Statistical facts? You have 4 people measure the groups to 3 places and then they are combined and divided by 4. The answer came out in 4 places. Am I wrong?
James, maybe you're talking about the new math. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 any more does it, chuckle chuckle.

I'm assuming you're being genuine here, so I'll take a stab at explaining the point being made a little differently.

If I brought this group to you with a standard 12" ruler with 1/32" graduations, and told you I measured it 4 times and got 2/32" once and 3/32" the other 3 times, and that the group therefore measures 11/128" or 0.0859375", would you agree that was the true size of the group?

Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians all say no. The ruler does not measure to 1/128" and so the measurement is not known to that level of accuracy. Reporting it that way is dishonest at best. Some very major disasters have occurred when people did not understand or respect this fundamental rule of reporting measurements (such as when designing important things like a space shuttle). This little piece of paper with holes in it that we are discussing hardly matters in that context, but it doesn't negate the valid point being made.

 

[M-61]

https://www.mtcshooting.com/more-views/

Thought this answered the smallest group question rather well.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

We're literally arguing over some fraction of a thousandth of an inch, measured on a piece of paper, torn into that paper by a bullet, with a set of calipers(with a piece of plastic attached to it). Am I right so far? I'd be willing to bet that the reticle used was not made to that tolerance and 40+ years later, I doubt it was the same reticle used on both record targets.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Statistical facts? You have 4 people measure the groups to 3 places and then they are combined and divided by 4. The answer came out in 4 places. Am I wrong?
James, maybe you're talking about the new math. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 any more does it, chuckle chuckle.

I'm in no way attacking or trying to provoke you, but yes, that would be incorrect. Regardless of how many measurements one takes with 0.xxx accuracy, they cannot come up with an average value that goes out to 0.xxxx accuracy (i.e. an extra decimal place or significant figure). This is the whole point of this discussion. Doing that is mathematically invalid. The last decimal place means absolutely nothing because it is a totally made-up number. None of the individual measurements had a fourth decimal place, so the final average value can not suddenly somehow be accurate to one more decimal place than any of the individual measurements from which it was taken.

Do you get that? The last decimal place is a totally made up value. It has no real meaning whatsoever and does not represent a valid value. I get it, that's how the rules currently say it's done. Regardless, it's a messed-up method for measurement and it should be changed. Unfortunately, it never will be changed if people aren't willing to openly discuss the fact that it is a flawed system. I would think participants would want their agg to be a valid number, not something manipulated by mathematics to represent a group spread different than what they actually shot. To put that into context of the OP, the .0077" group touted as the smallest ever most likely can only be stated with certainty to be a .008" group. Does it make a difference? I guess that depends on one's point of view. To my mind, it makes a huge difference, because in no possible way according to our science/mathematics did that individual shoot a .0077" group. Everyone else is obviously free to have their own opinion on the matter, but I personally wouldn't want a record that misrepresented the size of the group I actually shot. So do a few ten thousandths matter? If they don't, why even measure at all?

 

[Eagle Six]

Well I'm not a competitor, but I do find this conversation interesting and have read all the posts. If I were a competitor and by the current standards had shot a .0078, or a .0079, or even a .008 I would be disappointed I had not broken the record but also that I had not tied the world record, not because of a factual measurement, rather a questionable rule.

 

[jamesdmock]

Statistical facts? You have 4 people measure the groups to 3 places and then they are combined and divided by 4. The answer came out in 4 places. Am I wrong?
James, maybe you're talking about the new math. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 any more does it, chuckle chuckle.

You are indeed wrong. The answer should be in thousandths, just as was the measured group. If you don't believe me...GOOGLE IT. Look at the records for single groups. How many are listed with 4 decimal places???