Maximum score.

[Claretsmad]

I previously posted on a dedicated 10 metre precision shooting group. Asking whether any of the group members thought a maximum 654 could be achieved by a human being. This is obviously from a 60 shot competition for air rifle. I was amazed at some of the positive comments. The word that comes to my mind is 'impossible'. I have since left the platform due to the algorithm police. I wondered if we had more realistic members on here.

[RobinC]

Yes with out a doubt!!!

But it may be a good while, Why do I think so? I'm not hoping or guessing, I've been involved in the sport for 50 years, shot it, coached it, and am married to an ex GB team shooter, I have met, know, and seen some of the greats over those years.

All aspects of equipment and techniques are developing all the while, and technically if you can shoot one ten point nine, having deliberately held, aimed, taken the shot and called it as a 10.9 then you can shoot 60! Simples!

Now the laws of probabilities will suggest that its unlikely, and very difficult, but impossible? Oh no, its not that far off now, when, I have no idea, but I'm sure that one day.....

Club level or enthusiast level shooters may find it very difficult to understand, but having worked and coached top level shooters, and I'm married to one, OK she's retired now, and as I just coaches, but we are well aware that shooting air rifle standing is a matter of process (PROCESS, process, process........) and at top level, its of a mental understanding of that process, to the point of not hoping for a 10.9 but expecting a 10.9, and if its not, they know exactly why.

Its not luck or actually even really probabilities at that level, its merely the continuation of a process, like the result of a complex mathematical sum is the same each time, and so is the result of the process of taking the shot, as long as you do it correctly each time!

The question is can a human being repeat a process exactly 60 times? Oh yes! Its not just a matter of waiting for a super being to arrive, the reason it will happen is now training and professionalism is to a level ordinary shooters cannot even comprehend. And when that training, professionalism, technical equipment, works with people with a level of aptitude, then the results are remarkable, a deeper question is, is that level of training work load, commitment healthy?

Have fun
Robin

[Claretsmad]

Thank you Robin for your optimistic reply. With all the views I was wondering when someone would reply. I shouldn't have been surprised it would be yourself. I'm still in the 'not in this lifetime' camp. I bow down to your superior knowledge and experience. The strides the sport has found is quite remarkable. The scores achieved are phenomenal too. Perhaps when the first human achieves ten in a row I might change my mind. However I agree with you. At that point I might want to check whether the marksperson has a pulse.
Thank you again for a fantastic insight in to the world of the top athletes of our wonderful sport.

[harvey_s]

Yes with out a doubt!!!

But it may be a good while, Why do I think so? I'm not hoping or guessing, I've been involved in the sport for 50 years, shot it, coached it, and am married to an ex GB team shooter, I have met, know, and seen some of the greats over those years.

All aspects of equipment and techniques are developing all the while, and technically if you can shoot one ten point nine, having deliberately held, aimed, taken the shot and called it as a 10.9 then you can shoot 60! Simples!

Now the laws of probabilities will suggest that its unlikely, and very difficult, but impossible? Oh no, its not that far off now, when, I have no idea, but I'm sure that one day.....

Club level or enthusiast level shooters may find it very difficult to understand, but having worked and coached top level shooters, and I'm married to one, OK she's retired now, and as I just coaches, but we are well aware that shooting air rifle standing is a matter of process (PROCESS, process, process........) and at top level, its of a mental understanding of that process, to the point of not hoping for a 10.9 but expecting a 10.9, and if its not, they know exactly why.

Its not luck or actually even really probabilities at that level, its merely the continuation of a process, like the result of a complex mathematical sum is the same each time, and so is the result of the process of taking the shot, as long as you do it correctly each time!

The question is can a human being repeat a process exactly 60 times? Oh yes! Its not just a matter of waiting for a super being to arrive, the reason it will happen is now training and professionalism is to a level ordinary shooters cannot even comprehend. And when that training, professionalism, technical equipment, works with people with a level of aptitude, then the results are remarkable, a deeper question is, is that level of training work load, commitment healthy?

Have fun
Robin

A very considered and well worded answer...especially the question of if the level of commitment required would be healthy?
It's certainly not something I would want to sign up to

[Rutty]

Has any barrel\ammunition combination demonstrated that it can produce a HPS group on >50% of occaisions? Verified and recorded, not anecdotal.

Rutty

[RobinC]

Barrels?

On Air yes, my wife's rifle did at MEC in Dortmund, tested by Heinz Reinkemier, ten perfect 10.9's, Its not uncommon for them to test to 10.9 group sizes, modern air rifle technology is at a pinnacle, and the top pellets are also consistent.

Small bore barrels are the same, barrels and actions are good enough to hold the 10.9, but tests are not so tight, as the ammo is just not good enough, .22rf is a cheap sporting ammo, the cases are not high precision, primers are crudely spun in the rim, powder is a small charge with a 0.1 gn variance at best, that on a small charge produces varying pressure. The cast lead bullet is crude and is not seated to high precision. The best groups on .22RF are 13/14mm at 50 mts, not tight enough to hold the 10.9.

We shoot 300 mts and load our own from Precision components with precision attention to detail, its long winded and costly, not counting our time £125 per 100, but factory ammo is £250 per 100. If small bore was produced to the same precision, and as its physically small thats impractical, it would cost a similar level and none of us could afford to shoot small bore!

So a max score? Air yes, likely! Small bore, very unlikely!

Have fun
Robin

[Claretsmad]

I would like to add that if we are talking bench clamped. The accuracy has been with us for quite some time. I would go as far back as the Feinwerkbau 300. A match rifle quite capable of using the same hole multiple times.

[Rutty]

On Air yes, my wife's rifle did at MEC in Dortmund, tested by Heinz Reinkemier, ten perfect 10.9's, Its not uncommon for them to test to 10.9 group sizes, modern air rifle technology is at a pinnacle, and the top pellets are also consistent.

What was shot 11? Sorry Robin, but in this context 10 shots isn’t statistically significant. Anyway, we are discussing the score achieved in a 60 shot string.

I would like to add that if we are talking bench clamped. The accuracy has been with us for quite some time. I would go as far back as the Feinwerkbau 300. A match rifle quite capable of using the same hole multiple times.

In that case there must be verifiable test results going back over many years. I shot a FWB 300S in the early 1980s. Could you post a link?

To establish the likelihood of a shooter achieving 654 you first have to show that a rifle and ammunition combination is capable of it. This must be demonstrated as a 60 shot string and should be capable of being repeated sufficient times to show it was not a chance effect. Having quantified the purely mechanical aspects of the problem you can then move on to examine the relevant elements of shooter performance. This will probably involve collecting a large amount of data and calculating their individual Circular Error Probability. This may facilitate predicting whether it is more or less likely that an individual shooter could achieve a score of 654.

So, someone must have the figures? If the ammunition is capable one might imagine that the manufacturers would be openly saying so? It’s quite straightforward, 60 shots scoring 654.0.

Rutty

[Claretsmad]

With reference to the Feinwerkbau 300. Each new owner was presented with a handbook which carried on the front page. A single target shot at the factory verifying your rifle was capable of this illustration. Which was in essence 10 pellets through the same hole. The rifle was bench tested at the factory. As all the rifles were. They weren't allowed to leave until they passed that test. This was in the 1970's
Everything since is as Robin states. The bench test at the factory is a very special rig. Everything might be possible in theory. Then we add the human being.

[RobinC]

I offered my opinion based on my experience, my view is its likeley in air ( one day!) and in small bore unlikely!

I've now lost the will to live, some one else can have the last word!

Have Fun
Robin

[harvey_s]

What was shot 11? Sorry Robin, but in this context 10 shots isn’t statistically significant. Anyway, we are discussing the score achieved in a 60 shot string.



In that case there must be verifiable test results going back over many years. I shot a FWB 300S in the early 1980s. Could you post a link?

To establish the likelihood of a shooter achieving 654 you first have to show that a rifle and ammunition combination is capable of it. This must be demonstrated as a 60 shot string and should be capable of being repeated sufficient times to show it was not a chance effect. Having quantified the purely mechanical aspects of the problem you can then move on to examine the relevant elements of shooter performance. This will probably involve collecting a large amount of data and calculating their individual Circular Error Probability. This may facilitate predicting whether it is more or less likely that an individual shooter could achieve a score of 654.

So, someone must have the figures? If the ammunition is capable one might imagine that the manufacturers would be openly saying so? It’s quite straightforward, 60 shots scoring 654.0.

Rutty

If a rifle is capable of producing 10 shots through the same hole then the liklihood is it could well do 60 in a row as the rifle is unchanged - anything else is more likely to be an external influence.

However, all the other data you say you need is largely irrelevant as it's all historical.
In the meantime...
Rifles are still improving further.
Pellet production has improved immensely over the years.
Training has become more technical and focused with sports medicine/performance providing far more support to the athlete than ever before.

I'm not suggesting here that a maximum is likely anytime soon - just merely agreeing it's possible.

[Powderfinger]

No reason why it cannot be done. The guns and ammo can do it. A human is capable of having the technique and mindset to do it. Progress in all sports has continued: sub 4 minute miles are routine at the top level, jumps get higher and further, WR and ORs keep getting broken, I think all mountains have now been conquered (but correct me if I am wrong).

[Claretsmad]

I appreciate and respect the optimism. Technology does improve and sometimes at pace. There is no doubt technology has entered in to the ten metre air rifle sport. However some fifty years after a match rifle was probably capable of 60, 10.9's. We may have to wait a lot longer for a maximum of 654. I would go as far as to say it is improbable. Not being negative just realistic. The current world record holder is gauged over 24 shots at an average of nearly 10.6. Which is phenomenal. Some world records last decades. The sport deserves more coverage as it is way more engaging than some that are covered.

[harvey_s]

Take the 100m men's sprint record as an example...
No equipment to evolve - just the hard limit of human performance.
In the 1920's it stood at 10.6 secs.
Here we are 100 years later and it's now 9.6 secs.
That's a HUGE difference.

So never say never I'd say...

[Rutty]

There is a lot of "Groupthink" going on here. there appears to be a general acceptance of the proposition that 60 x 10.9 with consecutive shots is capability that has already been demonstrated. However no one has so far produced any evidence that this has been achieved.

All that needs to be provided is the score card, strip, report from an EST test. All the main EST manufacturers include a ballistic analysis application in their software so examples of tests scoring 654 should be available. So where are they?

Rutty