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

[rwj]

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.

I’d be elated to even shoot a group that required a microscope and/or an optical comparator to measure!

 

[butchlambert]

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???

Come on James, the record group is .0077". I'm not an old retired school teacher, but I can count that as 4 places to the right of the decimal. I don't see how it "should" be in thousandths. I guess in your estimation it is really a .008 or maybe a .007. You fellers are too much.
I'm going in to eat.

 

[Eagle Six]

I’d be elated to even shoot a group that required a microscope and/or an optical comparator to measure!

I would also, however still disappointed. That said I would have also played a game knowing the rules up front.

 

[jamesdmock]

The rules for a single group must have changed to get Stinnett's group listed as .0077. Here are some single group records. IBS HB 100 yd. Gary Ocock .045 HB 200 Yd. Russel Rains .096 LV 100 yd. Mark Shepler .051 LV 200 David Farrar .091 Sp 100yd. Jack Neary .060 NBRSA UL 100 yd. Gary Ocock .049
HV 100 Ralph Landon .027 and then we have the group in question LV 100 Mike Stinnett .0077.
Mike, this is not meant to take away any credit for your amazing group, but it is to point out that a group measured in thousandths should NOT be listed in ten thousandths.