.223 CZ600 Trail: grouping, and some points (yet again) about why 3 round groups are no good.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- Join us on the App! weaponsandwar.tv/
Did I not flog the 3-round-groups-aren't-groups dead horse enough back in the day? Anyway, two birds with one stone here: an introduction to the CZ 600 Trail rifle, a look at its grouping capacity at 50m with some Black Hills 77gn MK 262 MOD 1-C ammunition, and a demonstration/discussion about group sizes for testing as a result of this @backfire video: • The 1 MOA Hoax: How th...
0:00 Introduction and Overview of the czZ 600 Trail
1:41 Detailed Analysis of the czZ 600 Trail: Features and Drawbacks
3:51 Debunking Shooting Accuracy Myths and Misconceptions
6:22 Testing the CZ 600 Trail
9:36 The Importance of Sample Sizes in Shooting Groups
16:17 Performance Expectations
18:27 The CZ 600 Trail: Practicality versus Accuracy
20:55 Promo: Weapons and War TV
21:48 Closing Remarks
Chapters powered by PodcastAI✨
Playeur/Utreon: playeur.com/c/blokeontherange
Patreon: / blokeontherange
Teespring: teespring.com/stores/bloke-on...
Instagram: / blokeontherange
Facebook: / blokeontherange - Наука та технологія
The video referred to is by @backfire and is here: ua-cam.com/video/zK-Nkwl6ZQU/v-deo.html
20 years ago when starting precision shooting I went with what others told me to do, zeroing with 5 shot groups and testing loads with 5 shot groups. After way too many years it started to dawn on me, that any given 5 shots on the target are just part of a much bigger cluster that the gun would create if I kept on shooting. To actually get a proper zero for the rifle a 15 or 20 shot group is essential. After doing that, your next 5 shot group can still be "off" to the right, the next after that "off" to some other direction, but that absolutely does not mean your zero is off. I see people on the range re-adjusting zero all of the time, pretty much every session they think it's necessary to do so because shots don't land how they expect them to. That's just wasting perfectly good ammo into chasing statistical variation. So, accept that shots can land anywhere around the zero point, within the total spread of a much bigger 20 shot group, then you can focus your efforts into actual practice.
Great presentation again. Very useful when trying to make this point to people. I can't find the exact quote so forgive me paraphrasing but as Jeff Cooper put it: "If I want a really small group.... I just fire one round."
"Check out my 0.17" group!"
I think there is a persistent fuddlore that if a rifle is bolt action then it automatically is more accurate than a semi auto. In reality this just isnt the case. With this rifle I can see people wanting to justify their purchase by saying its more accurate than their AR-15. We live in a time of extremely high quality semi autos to the point where it takes alot of money to get a bolt action that can out shoot them.
Yeah there's a reason why the stuff that runs into sub 1 MOA is starting to get either stupidly expensive off the shelf guns or custom builds with both usually running handloads. Once you get below that you're kinda starting to hit diminishing returns for ever increasing investment.
I have people in comments making ridiculous claims that cheap hunting rifles and old milsurp bolt actions should shoot into 1 MOA and if I can't do it I'm shooting wrong, lol. It's like: dude, have you seen what goes into a genuinely sub-MOA rifle and ammunition and how much they cost? Did you note how they're configured totally differently to old milsurps in almost every way?
@@BlokeontheRange Ive had the same experience at the gun stores here in America, where old men will swear that their WW2 milsurp bolt action can shoot 1 moa. Its almost a meme at this point.
It's always that they once or twice shot a 3 round group into 1 MOA, lol.
@ntheRange There is also one Finnish guy who tested this rifle and his groups also had quite
variations between them when used 52-77 grain sellier bellot match.
I kind of expect that bolt-action from today should achieve that magical 1moa accuracy
with good ammunition if shooter is doing his job.
Definelty that doesnt mean it happen every single time you try but this specifig
model seems to be overally bit more inaccurate than it could potentially be
if action would be sitting in more solid chassis.
From good AR i hope it is least closer to 1 than 2 moa with right load but definelty im willing
to be more forgiving than with same caliber from bolt gun.
Overally i try keep my expectations realistics when it comes to real world accuracy.
Edit: I hoped this gun would be good alternative for small game specially
grouses in Finland but if my AR is already outperforming what i have
seen from other test i can hardly see a point when this only have
weight advantage.
Hornady's engineers agree with you, mostly, they have video's "Your groups are too small" and "Your groups are still too small". Where they discuss it takes about 50 shots to remove "flyers".
In practical range time and money 20 shots shows 80% of what can be expected. Pacing is something that needs to be thought of with lighter profile barrels but more shots complete the picture .
I love how this bloke took us from product intro to the finer points of accuracy estimation, to evolutionary psychology, and gradually back again. In my marksmanship practice, I try to focus on first-round, cold-bore shots. I've found my impacts walk up and to the right as the barrel warms on one of my rifles. I think waiting 5 min or so between shots has a greater learning vs cost benefit, even though mag-dumps are more immediately satisfying.
Thanks for another great video. I use 15 shot groups to test a rifle's capabilities and it is illuminating to see how few high end rifles can group inside 1MOA for 15 shots in a row even with carefully made handloads.
I got my nerd on watching this, bloke
Agree with your conclusion
Your results combined would make the 1/2 moa
Keep up the excellent informative quality content bestest from Scotland
I'm glad you gave CZ some advice. As soon as I saw it I thought of the Frankenrifle and they should definitely bring you on as a consultant!
People seem to forget just how bloody good anything under 2.5MOA is. More likely than not at 1000 yards you're getting an impact on a man sized torso. Sure, a lower MOA is better but at the end of the day how much should that concern a shooter when they could spend more money on ammunition to practice with.
Hahahaha, under 2.5 MOA and bloody good, nice fkin joke. Im satisfied with 2.5 MOA and cheap reloads fired from .223 saiga. You seems to forget what even half decent accuracy is, modern bolt action rifle and 2.5MOA is either mismatch of ammunition or simply bad rifle. Either way unacceptable.
@@Alen725 HONK HONK
Barrel temperature and construction plays a huge role in group size. Your average hunting rifle is really only made for maybe 1-5 shots before it is warm enough to start throwing shots. In reality it should only be 1 shot right? When installing a new scope on my hunting rifle I will wait anywhere between 30 minutes and an hour between shots(I know that's extreme) to make sure it isn't barrel temperature affecting my shots. So, shooting a 10-round group is best, I agree. I worry that many folks may be unreasonable when it comes to barrel temperature and time between shots based on barrel construction. Great video Bloke.
Given how important that first shot is I think if I was truly zeroing a hunting rifle I would setup two targets. Fire one shot into left. Fire second immediately into right. Wait 20 minutes to cool down to cold bore again. Repeat 5 times.
Now you have two 5 shot groups and can tell real accuracy, real zero, and any cold bore shift.
Funny thing about 'cool bore' shots that was noted on another channel, about gases left in the barrel between closely spaced shots, which brought to mind the barrel clearance methods on naval guns and tank guns... The fellow used a straw to blow out the barrel, and completely eliminated the apparent difference
In one video about rimmfires and their cold bore shot it was more about
powder residues in a riflings than gasses. Cold and dry residues acted
bit different than fresh fouling. So blowing in a chamber softened those
residues to mach closer to fresh fouling.
If have to go that far for damn good group i think i stick with
cold and clean bore zero for hunting purposes😆
@Kesssuli;
Indeed... if a person is hunting, the "cold bore" shot is the one that really counts.
The video that i saw made it seem unlikely to be powder residues, as be just blew gently through a straw, and, in the case of smoothbore tank cannon, there's no rifling...in any case, I'm not here to argue about the subject, but always open to more good input!
Cheers! 🇨🇦🐻
Just got my 600 trail. Need to setup with optics and a can. Awesome video to let me know what to expect. Hopefully don’t have any Slavic accuracy issues!
Thanks Bloke👍
Good info, thanks again for sharing.
Thank you for the interesting video - I am an artist, and your videos on your channel are very interesting and important! Good wishes from Tashkent!
Thank you very much for this very interesting video. There is an introduction to the topic of sample size in "small-bore rifles - a guide for rimfire users", by C. Rodney James. Unhappily the original (Statistical) papers are very difficult to obtain.
I have the CZ600 Trail and tested quite a few loads on 100 Meter. I am very happy with Sierra #1380->69Grain, 19,5 N130 and a OAL of 56,6mm. Accuracy is between 1,5 and 2,5 cm on 100 Meter. Another load was very good with a Sierra 77 HBPT, 18,9 N130 and OAL 56,4mm. It is no PRS rifle but it is definitely accurate. I am very confident that I will find a even better load. My scope is a GPO Spectra 6x 5-18x56BTi and I just used a UTG 360 bipod. The wobble is not nice but it really doesn't matter as soon as you pull the rifle into the shoulder.
I have the CZ 527 in 7.62x39 and just last year scored a CZ 600 Trail in that caliber. It shoots good factory ammo 1.5moa and sketchy steel-cased mil-surp about 2.5moa. 7.62x39 is a much under appreciated as a bolt gun cartridge. Pretty equivalent to 30-30 Winchester. The buttstock is kind of wonky but having a HK91A1 collapsing buttstock of similar configuration, I'm just glad that it is nowhere near as heavy as the HK buttstock. About half of the 10 shot Bren 2 magazines need some fitting to work properly. I suspect that is the reason that the gun ships with only one magazine. That said, the Bren 2 magazines are much easier to load than the single-stack 527 magazines.
The comments on this three hours in (to my CDN anyway) are kinda amazing. There is lore and then there is Lore (and a heap of changing the goalposts). I don't get to shoot really anymore, so for me this is totally academic and just data for where to hold expectations if and when I win a lottery, but stats are just that, the math just does not lie. I can compare a lot of this to some of the work I've done and trying to hit tolerances that the equipment inherently is just not capable of, but instead of a reasonable "good enough" standard, you spend an extra few hours until you can find three or four sample pieces that are "perfect". and the machine operator will mess it up an hour later anyway.
Good morning from Germany pal, I always look at the concept of use for all of my firearms. My main hunting rifle in .308 has to go hole in hole from the bench stock supported on a bag, within an inch of the bullseye at 100m with the scope at 6x magnification with the first two rounds fired, I.e., cold shooter and barrel. I initially liked the Trail, but the price of €1,300 here made it more expensive than I was willing to pay, as then a mid range LPVO and mounts and a halfway decent suppressor would have seen a complete system on the range of €3k to get that kind of grouping at 50m.. Have you taken it out to 100m? My old 527 in .222 would do hole in hole at 100m all day. Then the other considerations as a hunter are, take enough gun for any game you may encounter while you’re out hunting, and the Trail in .223 isn’t it. Thanks for your review confirming that it just isn’t worth the price tag. BTW my old bog standard Ruger 10/22 got better groupings than that at 50m.. al si thi.
I only recall three shot groups to check the see sights for zero. 20 shots to see how accurate and because I only shot old military guns, but really 60 shots to confirm it wont fall off once toasty warm. Sky high ammo cost drove me to AR platform in 5.56 ... with the optics available... accurate.
Admittedly my first "modern" gun was a savage 10fp that slings 168smk 3/4" or less and 175smk RARELY shoot a group over 1 inch.. typically just under. (5 shot groups for both, but as a reloader i'm used to analyzing a groups position relative to other groups)
I ended up "chasing the dragon" for years.
Very interesting, have never thought of that approach to groups. I’ve always worked with 5 shots. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 I’m a hunter, not much of a target shooter.
My university professors got us reciting “anecdotal evidence is evidence of an anecdote” and “correlation is not causation”.
I think I’d like to go add “3 round groups… aren’t”
That's the title of a very early video on the channel indeed! :D
@BlokeontheRange
Excellent and thought-provoking video 👍 You would probably like Terry Wieland, who has written a column for Shooting Times for years now; he has similar thoughts on accuracy and groups...
Few things I learned from this video:
- Three round groups is useless (as a measure of accuracy; might still be good for zeroing
- Due to statistical variation, the bigger (more shots) groups are better
- Our lower brain functions can fool us into seeing patterns where none exists and the truth reveals itself if you average everything
- Math and statistics rules (I know that already, being trained in engineering and physics)
- Indonesian surplus M193 is trash
Would you say that the CZ600 Trail is a bit like an AR but in bolt action rifle form considering that it is meant to be a practical rifle? Also, something like the Trail in a full power cartridge would be what I would take if there is an expedition to another planet in a Stargate-esque setting even when there are plenty of automatic weapons being brought by the expedition.
I think that's a fair assessment of the Trail. I love it, but it's not without its limitations, I wish it grouped OK with 55 and 62gn ammo.
@@BlokeontheRange I do wonder if there will be a video by you breaking down the Trail in go full geek (I know that the stuff with a modded bolt handle is coming) to see why it doesn't wanna group with "regular" ammo.
Also, the accuracy issues is a major reason why American guntubers are not happy about this gun at all. If it doesn't group better than an AR, what's the point?
Nerdy look at the Trail is already available to $5+ Patrons and is coming soon to the public. The point is for jurisdictions where you can't use an AR or where it's too restrictive. I love the thing, but I accept I need to use 69+gr ammo in it (I think they should have made it a 1:9 twist, might re-barrel it some day) if I want decent accuracy...
@@BlokeontheRangeYeah, guessing even for places where straight pull ARs are restrictive (are these cheaper than those?) because you know that there are places where "military appearance" are controlled.
If the accuracy is just a little better or it's good with 77 gr, then you could technically make it into a bolt-action SPR.
It's kind of a shame that it doesn't shoot 55s and 62s well because based on Ziga's and yours runs in Lynx Brutality, it seems to be a good gun to Mad Minute or otherwise rapid fire for whatever reason.
Yep, they can discourage the Jaffar whilst you deal with the G'ould System Lord.
1 MOA rifles don’t exist. 1 MOA rifles AND ammunition combinations do.
I think it is important to understand that when shooting groups like this a person is not only evaluating the precision of just the rifle and ammo combination.
You’re really evaluating the precision of the rifle, the sighting system, the given type or “load” of ammo, the shooting position, the shooter’s ability, and the range conditions at a given time. Even the type of target or aiming point used can affect group size as it affects how easily it is to form a repeatable sight picture with a give sighting system.
To truly evaluate the precision of a given rifle and ammo combination you have to control or eliminate all the other sources of error via testing in a test tunnel with the rifle in a machine rest. Essentially that means a 1 MOA rifle and ammo combo will likely never shoot that well in real world conditions.
If you want to shoot 1 moa all the time; you need a 1/4 moa rifle and ammo combo and a Olympic gold medal winning level of skill.
Thank you for another common sense video. Your picture may still be going up on dartboards and there might be a few people trying to make voodoo dolls😂 BUT … results and honest statistical analysis are what help us to determine the operational parameters of our tools. What some people fail to realise, is that: the people who make firearms and ammunition carry out their own accuracy tests when they buy brand new CNC machines, after they have run those machines for certain numbers of cycles and after maintenance is carried out on those machines. Everything varies to some degree or another. You can work successfully, within those variations, if you take proper measurements, analyse them honestly and use your tools within the revealed limitations.
I am a carpenter and I use an engineering square to check the squareness of a power saw before attempting straight cuts. I also use an engineering square to help drill holes at right angles to the material that I am drilling. I use spirit levels, string lines and laser levels. I constantly check squares, spirit levels, string lines and laser levels to confirm that they are working and/or being setup correctly. When you are sending bullets down range to a target, you need to be meticulous in recording and analysing the information that you obtain there from; otherwise … take up knitting😁!
I always appreciated your (And Henry’s take on accuracy.) stance on this issue. It’s refreshing. The unrealistic expectation of rifle accuracy by modern American shooters has always annoyed me. They cherry pick groups and types of rounds. I use a rifle for work where the target is very rarely a person doing something bad or for hunting/putting down injured animals where the goal is an ethical kill. I need a rifle that can take rough handling, in horrible weather conditions and work with every type of cheap ammo the government buys or I can find on the local store shelf.
Aloha; well done! Mahalo
All this depends on what you are shooting at...is it paper or something warm that you want to make cold . That combo looks like a trail gun but if that's the case then I would up the calibre depending on what you expect to encounter. So I don't have a reason to own this setup but as always it's great to see new stuff evaluated 👍
Then the 7.62x39 or 300 BO variant exist
Illuminating 👍
It's one of those things where forgetting our context has led to just insane marketing rotting our brains. Like, under 2 MOA is really, really fantastic given that common rifles a century ago could barely achieve twice that, and 50 years before that it was unheard of. 1 is just a sexy number, and if every rifle could hit that easily PRS shooters wouldn't be playing gun golf with 20-pound monstrosities.
I've managed individual 0.9 10-round groups with my 22" Ruger .223 while I was evaluating commercial loads, but I do recognize it's not the norm. I'll be going out soon to get a proper large group test to see where we're really at with the ones that worked the best initially, though, the rifle seems to favor 40-55 grain varmint rounds over the heavy stuff
I have one of these with the 20 inch barrel and 1:9 twist rate and generally shoot 5 round groupings around 1MOA or less with 55 gr blitz king, 3200fps with target at 100m. I suspect some shooters struggle with the stock and poor choice of optic. For statistical reliability you have to do a minimum of 30 shots given the number of variables in play e.g. shooter, ammunition, windage. I wouldn't worry too much about it. My conclusion is, in good hands and well supported with bipod or similar its a 1 MOA firearm and can be less if you consider 5 shot groupings. If you go 30 shots I get ~1.4 MOA (0.4MRAD at 100m). Keep in mind this is a back pack rifle capable of humanely taking small game at under 300m. In this role its excellent, compact, light and yet still robust.
I think a 1:9 twist rate would have been better for this kind of rifle, cos the 1:7 clearly does not like the lighter bullets at all...
@@BlokeontheRange They were probably looking at the US market and people shooting 77 gr to 90 gr bullets which are nice and stable with 1:7, I like the optionality the 20 inch version delivers particularly maximising powder burn. I find it to be a very practical and useful firearm. Horses for courses.
@BlokeontheRange perhaps it's the quality of the lighter bullets?
I've a 1/8 twist, that puts 36 grain varmint grenades, 55 and 64 grain game kings, 68 grain bthp all into an inch or better (at 100 yards). Whilst surplus 55 and 62 grainers will be up to 4 inches.
@@NelsonZAPTM I shot 0.15MIL at 100m last sat whilst checking zero and off bipod (5 shots, with this rifle - 20 inch version), When shooters are inaccurate and imprecise there are always a number of factors at play. Part shooter, part ammunition, part scope and part rifle.
That is a Calibrated Bolt-Action Marksman's Muzzled Combat Rifle from Fallout 4, & I hereby claim my £10... Cheers, Bloke 😊
3 shots are in fact groups.
The issue is people do not understand the statical significance of a single three shot group.
A single 3 shot group is little more than reading the spec sheet for a new cars performance standards. It has nearly no real world meaning.
The larger the sample size the better the data.
That said there is a very specific point and time where a two to three shot group is perfectly acceptable. That point and time is a F Class or Benchrest rifle, shot from a very heavy front rest and heavy rear bag with a known good load. This also requires a good amount of experience to “read the groups properly”
But even in this case a 3 round group is not the definition of the rifles level of accuracy. It is merely a test of consistency.
And yes I do shoot five and ten round groups too to see how the barrel acts as it warms up.
Now the reason why us F Class shooters test three round groups is.
1. We have reduced a huge number of variables in the test by using very accurately actions,barrels, triggers, and ammo.
2. Our barrel life will not support larger tests. Typically an F open class barrel is done in about 1200 to 2000 rounds at the absolute best.
But here again you are correct. The issue with a factory gun with factory ammo is the loose nut behind the bolt believing that one tiny three shot group is what the gun will do all the time. And it’s just flat wrong
You asked for it! Celtic, Red Hawaiian, Sea, Pink Himalayan, Rock, Iodized.
If you get groups of 1 moa, 2 moa you can still dispatch a squirrel. Or you can skip groups, after say 20 shots. 20 rounds, gun new out of the box. Go straight to squirrel after that.
For hunting/sniping, if your rifle doesn't shoot cold bore accurate aka 1st shot dead right there, then any number ie 3,5 or 10 shot grooups don't matter. That said, you must know where your rifle will shoot with it's favorite ammo under as many different temperature and weather conditions as possible. Another serious variable is elevation above sea level. Your favorite ammo will not shoot the same place at 1000m ASL as it does down at 100-300m. BTW you better know where your rifle shoots with off the shelf ammo of different weights as well.
The first shot can land anywhere in the (cold bore) group. People seem to assume that the first shot is by definition in the middle, which is simply not the case.
Apart from the dodgy butt, a very interesting piece of kit.
In the real world, especially a "hunting' environment, the ONLY round that counts is the FIRST round from a cold barrel. For starters, the hat-rack, or whatever, is not going to be standing round for very long, ifthe first shot is less than "effective".
On a "two-way" range, I suspect similar principles apply.
Shoot ONE round at the test target and observe the fall of shot. Have a cool drink, admire the scenery and wait for the barrel to cool to ambient, and repeat. The closer the two shots are together (assuming no operator errors, the more valid the "starting point for any "adjustment".. IF the two shots are close together, it probably indicates that the ammo is "consistent". After "sight adjustments" and further waiting for the rifle to cool, fire a third "confirming shot". The POA and the MPI should be fairly close together.
Firing boxes of expensive Factory or hand-loaded ammo might be good for the ammo and component companies, but it misses the point of a "hunting" or "sniper" rifle. First shots from a cold bore are "where it's at", most of the time. As range increases and altitude and air temperature change, all bets are off for a "universal" zero.
Now, if you find yourself in a "target-rich" environment at "short range", the first consideration is whether it is a one-way or a two-way range, which will alter certain conditions.
The thing is though that taking a long time between shots doesn't affect the theory of groups or the statistics underlying it, and that first shot can be *anywhere* in the (cold-barrel) group.
Hence "ordnance" systems developing and refining a cartridge using Mann rigs in long tunnels and THEN "tuning the rifle to that standardizes cartridge: Millions of rifles, Many billions of cartridges.
thus, target and field rifles with "adjustable" bedding and barrel "damping". The best example of this on a large scale was the development of the M21 sniper rifle from the rattly old M14. Standardized "Match" ammoand some very interesting "tweaks" to the rifles, themselves. .
Another example is the Australian use of "special" heavy barrels in their WW2 SMLE-based sniper rifles. The cute part is that these "H" barrels were NOT originally a military requirement. The demand came from the Rifle clubs.
When the Rifle club rules changed in the late 1920s, the "competition legal" barrel length was changed to "standard", i.e., the "issue' No1 Mk3. All the characters shooting vintage "long" Lee Enfields had to get a "nose job" to stay in the game. Lithgow Small Arms Factory was still making replacement "long" barrels up until this time.
One upshot was that the old "long" barrels had a beefier profile and, with the aperture sights coming onto vogue, shot better than the "light-barreled No1 rifles. a different Knox Form. Lithgow's answer was to make NEW barrels that combined the standard No1 Mk 3 Knox form, with the profile of the "long barrel" and finished off with a step-down at the muzzle to accept the standard No1 front sight AND fit and correctly bed into the nose-cap..
So far, so good. The new barrels, as one would logically suspect, had a COMPLTELY differnt set of vibrations.Additionally, the barrel tuners built into a "stock No1 Mk3 were right out. The "inner band", with its spring-loaded "pull-down" screw was too small to fit and too thin to "adjust. the spring and plunger based in the nose cap and intended to apply UPWARD pressure on the barrel and thus, constant centered, upward pressure on the muzzle port in the nose cap.. The wild experimentation started. All manner of internally-mounted pads, packing and gizmos were tried. There was ONLY ONE cartridge approved for competition, good old Mk 7 BALL; no substitutes allowed. There were numerous flights of fancy, not the least of which was to open out the muzzle port in the nose cap and fit a "soft" bushing. What this usually amounted to was hacking out the port with a rat-tailed file and belting a short length of rubber hose-pipe in as the bedding collar. Most specimens I have encountered also had the barrel channels in the fore-end and hand-guards "opened out" to accommodate the fatter barrel and all manner of "packing".
"Free floating" was a mess, primarily because of the two-piece stock system and the softness of the (generally) Coachwood furniture.
Interesting to note that the target types tried "free-floating" with No4 rifle, to no avail; there was a VERY good reason the No4 fore-end applies UPWARD pressure to the barrel, right at the front of the woodwork.
And ALL of this voodoo was conducted with STANDARD Mk7 BALL
Whilst the No4 applied upward muzzle pressure, the US M21 applied DOWNWARD pressure via the little "hook" on the bottom of the plate that sits between the gas system and the fore end ; basically "tweaking" the pattern of vertical vibrations in the barrel. BUT to get the right amount of downward pressure, the BODY of the rifle has to be bedded into the wooden stock (with its steel liner), such that the barrel and stock alignment diverge. The wooden fore end essentially becomes a "spring". The M21 is a fabulous bit of kit, but VERY high maintenance.
One can appreciate the modern concept of "chassis" systems
Aw man, i miss spaced
Just curious, might bagging under the pistol grip work?
I was seeing two lines forming a "V", one line of three shots almost vertical, the other line of three shots (pivoting around the "outlier") agling up at about 5 degrees.
Same group in my book.
You're seeing patterns where it's just normal statistical variation.
CZ600 trail is not a cheap rifle by any means. It costs 1/3 more than a typical basic hunting rifle (i.e. CZ600 alpha, Savage 10, Tikka t3x lite, and even its predecessor CZ527), and the only thing it offers over them is a folding stock that's not even that good. With that money someone can build from a Savage or Tikka action with a equally short and light barrel with much better accuracy. Add some more money and drop it into a lightweight chassis you'd be miles ahead of the CZ600 trail.
True, but has anyone done it?
As far as i know Trail is the only one of this kind on the market
@@PolenarTactical Q Mini Fix, but that's even more expensive. Seems to me that Ruger are missing an opportunity to throw their American Ranch Rifle into a collapsible 'tactical' stock which takes AR pistol grips, and undercut CZ on price.
US$3k! Woah... That's about 3x the list price of the Trail in the US. And that bolt handle looks a bit weird, but it's better placed than the Trail...
Have you tried shooting .224 REM pressure ammo? I bet it will print much closer to 1 MOA with 69gr SMK or Berger 73Gr, both at .223 pressures instead of 5.56.
Applied Ballistics has a neat scale factor chart, related to group size increase along with shot count. It’s not as useful from 3 shot groups, because of the reasons you mention, but is helpful from 5 or 10 shot groups to determine what a large group would be, statistically, without using the ammo. Basically, it says if you have a 3 shot group, multiply it by 1.58 to get what it would likely be at 10 shots. Multiply it by 1.99 to see what it would be at 30 rounds. Similarly, for a 5 shot group, multiply it by 1.24 and 1.56 to see what it would be at 10 and 30 rounds respectively.
You can't just do that multiplication with *any* 3-shot group: the largest 3-shot group is going to be not that far off the 10 shot group, but the smallest 3 shot group is going to be a bug hole...
As I said stated, it’s not as useful when starting with three round groups because of the reasons you mentioned in the video. But it’s still better than just claiming the 3 round group is what the gun shoots. And it helps a lot if you want to extrapolate a 5 or 10 shot group. Applied Ballistics research is top notch.
Maybe I’m missing something but have always reckoned the user is more of the issue rather than the equipment, I’ve had days when it seemed I couldn’t miss, others couldn’t hit the side of the barn. Equipment didn’t change.
More info & stats you provide more answers can be derived, amazing what you can do with basic excel spreadsheet 😂
As a "Trail" rifle I understand the collapsing stock, but it looks so wobbly. I this is extremely common with collapsing stocks, but with modern materials I feel like someone should be able to make a robust one.
Honestly a good wire folder probably would've been a better idea.
I can confirm the financially ruinous nature of Black Hills ammo at 2CHF a round in Suisse!
Academically the sample variation does not equate with the population variation for a normally distributed function (which your rifle probably doesn't produce since there can be variation over time) until you get to at least 30 measurements. Student's T test.
People miss the point this rifle is not supposed to be a precision rifle still very accurate but a very light handy rifle that you are going to carry alot hiking recon and rarely shoot , if you rarely going to shoot why not make it as compact light as possible and accurate enough if you understand
Except you can get a rifle twice as accurate for half the price. That still takes AR mags. Ruger or Mossberg.
The CZ trail 600 is a over priced under performing tacticool toy.
Facts.
You have just described how most archeologists misuse carbon 14 data in dating their sites.
I wish the stock would have more solid lock up, but the accuracy of this gun is not a huge deal-breaker or even much of a red flag for me. It's an appealing rifle because it isn't terribly expensive, it is lightweight, the bolt cycles nice and smoothly, it can be quite compact, and it accepts ar15 mags. It very clearly exists so as to give the owner a fallback rifle in the event of semi-auto bans. Otherwise why would anyone buy a bolt action rifle chambered in .223 when "real" longer-range calibers exist for hunting or target shooting, cheaper .22wmr rifles will easily take varmints, and on a trail it would be more convenient to carry a handgun, even something like a .44 mag?
General question about the rifle if you get chance to answer: how long is the receiver? I have a slightly unreasonable desire to get one in 300 blk, chop the barrel down to 12", and run 2 red dots in a line (1 for sub, 1 for super) with a 3x magnifier. Add supressor then working up a loading which is subsonic through the barrel.
I'm just not sure how much I'd be able to cop the barrel down to.
People here are chopping them to 10-12".
@BlokeontheRange thanks, should've specified, I'm in the UK so have to stay the 24" OAL requirement. E.g. if I chop it down to 12", would the firearm be 22" overal length with the stock collapsed, putting me outside of the 60cm requirement?
I did the maths on this before, I think to stay over 60cm with it collapsed you can chop to 13"
How am I going to flex my none existent interweb clout if I can't cherry pick my best 3 and 5 round groups from 2 or 3 weekends of wasting $200-$1000 in ammo?
Thanks for the low key rant.
Tend to agree that you can simply get lucky with a 3 shot group and 5 shot groups should be used to confirm.
You can still get lucky with 5's though
I made a video a while back on the 3-shot group nonsense and even despite that video, yours and Backfire's -- among others -- I *still* get arguments from people.
I believe, it could be because of plastik used instead of alluminum on some parts.
What's that flag patch you're wearing?
Elbonia, it's a Forgotten Weapons thing :)
@@BlokeontheRange Is the CZ 600 Trail Elbonia's new DMR?
Yes. With 55gn M193 XD
Where can one get that sling?
schnackyprogress.com/en when they're in stock
A company called Varja concepts makes a Ferro slingster clone they call the mk2, they offer it in pretty much any pattern you want. I have one in alpenflage that is perfect and looks a lot like the one here. There is a lead time though, also their site is not greatly maintained so I order by email they’re responsive. And the price was $40 last I ordered.
As a scientist, I have to say that I love science, especially firearms related one.
But I totally agree, sometimes it is very hard to fight and win against the genetically programmed bias.
Statistically, I think you could do worse than finding the center of the group by taking the height as the median by height, and width "width" as the median left to right. It would be easier if you shot at a longer range so the holes are more separated.
The reality is you don't need 1 MOA for the majority of things you are going to do with your gun. Most people can't shot 1 MOA even if their gun can. It's all just internet nonsense.
What is the twist rate on it??
1:7
I feel like I have to translate true MOA into BS MOA when talking with friends to avoid “what’s wrong with your gun” conversations.
No. The gun really is 2-3moa. And so is yours. No you aren’t getting 1moa out of a stock AR with bulk xm193 but sure I guess I’ll tell you I get 1moa too (occasionally stack 3 rounds on top of one another)
Is their a way to replace that stock?
Nobody makes an alternative yet. I think one with an OG Sako TRG type pistol grip / butt would be perfect (and might tighten the grouping somewhat)
@@BlokeontheRange - thanks. I was surprised they didn't use a bolt on picatiny rail style option, but it looks like the bolt comes back too far and that style of stock would interfere with it?
Is it true that there wkll never be a 600 trail in .308 because ita a smol action?
They'd have to do an entirely new design on a medium action with an entirely new receiver. I don't think there's the market for it.
There could be in germany. As neither .300blk or 7,62x39 has the needed 2000 joules at 100m to be hochwildtauglich.
@@joh1732 I think you just discovered a market outside of the 'straight-wall states' of the American Midwest for .400 Legend.
Metric written on top. commas instead of decimal points. A nine that looks like a “g”
The continentals have gotten to him!
Yes, I've gone native lol XD
What is the reasoning behind not being able to shoot at midday?
Can't eat my rösti with the noise.
We’re saying mow ah now. Man I can’t keep up with UA-cam gun terminology lol
I shoot one shot groups. All my rifles are equally consistent.
Ya well my Mosin gets sub moa all day long with my one shot groups!
I am testing my ammo with 23 shots and measure the 20 best.
This should be common sense.
Group size should be ten rounds or your magazine capacity whichever comes first. No magazine defaults to 5.
Aside from almost every military bolt action rifle 😉
@@BlokeontheRange you say that because the SMLE will look slightly less accurate under my general guidelines.
there's no reason to link magazine capacity to grouping tests though...
Went to the range with a coworker after he talked a big game about how accurate his rifle is, only for him to shoot the shittiest reman ammo.
What’s the point of spending $2000 on a rifle, and then using shitty ammo?
Saw that all the time in NL. Guy with a 300WM 1000yd Benchrest type rifle (for shooting at 100m) shooting the crappiest S&B bullets he handloaded into cases he'd tortured.
Well, I think part of it is that "practical" about. Particularly - why would somebody want this bolt action vs just AR. And if you are not pushing on accuracy - you have really hard time to answer that.
Not everywhere allows semiauto AR's....
@@BlokeontheRange ...and many of the places that do don't allow them to be used for hunting. Arguably a better suppressor/moderator host too.
@@BlokeontheRange True. But also why would you do that flimsy collapsible stock on a rifle - that looks ridiculous.
I dunno, ask HK, cos it's basically a copy of what they put on pretty much every roller locked design they ever made lol
I use 3 rounds to determine velocities, not accuracy.
In statistical terms though, the issues are exactly the same. Not that that necessarily matters, depending on what you are trying to achieve.
Do a bit of editing and superimpose all the targets over each other...
And now, you've got me wondering if a person an get one of these so-called "AIs" to take and superimpose target results. To where a person could actually get additive results.
Salty Comment furry Al's Go Rhythm
"Obi Wan, what is it?"
"It was as if millions of Fudds suddenly had the wind struck from their sails . . . all crying out in the darkness, 'Noooooo' "
I disagree with the statement, that averaging group sizes is "throwing away information". I mean, I maybe understand what you were trying to say here, but it's not exactly correct. We are not throwing away anything, we are "weighting" it.
Nowadays there is software which can superimpose separate groups on top of each other. I think that instead of shooting a 40 round group it'd be better to shoot 8 5 round groups and do some sort of statistics on those (where a simple average is a form of statistics). Then we should also superimpose all groups on top of each other and measure that too.
Optimally it would be the best to learn what the exact distribution of the shots is, and it can be done. A "group size" of any amount of shots is simply not that precise of an information. It's only a single number, after all.
The information we're looking for is the overall grouping capacity. By averaging, we're throwing away information we want since we're weighting it in favour of uninformative information (the smallest groups don't tell us anything useful).
@@BlokeontheRange " *overall grouping capacity* "
I don't know what it means.
We shoot a cone of fire, which is empty in the middle. If we average the group size, we learn what our rifle *usually* does. What extra info do we learn from a 40 shot group? The extreme spread? Nope. Shots outside of that area are still possible.
It would work better, if we could easily establish a 90% zone, 80% zone or something like that, but we don't do that, do we?
A 100% zone hardly exists.
BTW - In case you are not aware of him, there is a cool and very relevant channel called Blackburn Defense. He did *a lot* of work on group sizes.
We don't shoot a cone of fire which is empty in the middle though. Density is greatest at the middle and drops off as you move outwards.
The average group size is not at all what the rifle "usually" does, half the time it's bigger than that and half the time it's smaller than that, and this is the only info remaining, it doesn't tell you what the rifle *will* shoot into, and half the time the result will be worse than the average figure.
From a 40 shot group we learn, more or less, the absolute extreme spread, as close enough to it statistically as makes no difference in practice.
There are various statistics based around 50% height, 50% width, 50% radius (double of which gives 95% radius) (the Germans and Swiss like this), mean radius (aka Figure of Merit) (the US and UK militaries used to like this), 70% height, 70% width (that's Soviet, and is interesting cos it gives you a 50% (technically 49% but that's splitting hairs) rectangle when you combine them), H+L (height + width, the French liked that), the equivalent score on the ISSF 300m target (the Swiss used that and I think still do) but mostly these days people talk about the overall group size for a certain number of shots because if you're only using one value, it's the one that contains the most useful information.
The issue is that if you make 4x 5 shot groups you will get a vastly different result than shooting one 20 shot group
@@BlokeontheRange " *Density is greatest at the middle* "
That's incorrect and it has been demonstrated on the channel I mentioned. The distribution of the shot placement is *not* a normal distribution (where density is the highest in the middle), but a Chi distribution.
'[Chi] is the distribution of the Euclidean distance between a multivariate Gaussian random variable and the origin"
The "origin" here is the "point of impact". The Euclidean distance here is simply distance. The variables are just errors.
We may think of it this way. If there are two independent causes of dispersion, then in order for the shot to hit exactly into the center of the group, both errors must cancel each other *exactly* . That rarely happens, so there are *no shots* that hit right into the "point of impact".
" *half the time it's bigger than that and half the time it's smaller* "
That'd be perfect.
" *50% radius (double of which gives 95% radius)* "
Who's doing that, though? ;-) But yes, it could be done.
However, shooting a lot of rounds in quick succession quite often results in a point of impact shift. I don't know, but if I shot a bunch of 5 shot groups, I might actually see it happening.
Anyway, I've no idea how to interpret the group size of 40 rounds. 50% and 95% radiai are clear enough, but how do I get there from 40 shot group size?
A matter of familiarity, I guess. Well, I'm not familiar with that method.
CZ only claims the trail version to be a 2 MOA rifle. and unguaranteed. the rifle performed better than that in this video.
the trail is as accurate as a good AR but CZ doesnt claim that it’s anything better
This video doesnt disprove sub MOA guarantees on CZ’s other models. if anything it shows they’re being humble
aso great shooting
I expect more from a good AR btw. But as a general rule "MOA" guarantees are BS since they're either unstated as to what the basis is, or it's "shoot a bunch of 3 shot groups until one comes in under 1 MOA.
Pet peeve… British pronunciation of aluminum.🧐
Love you Brits though!👍
It's not the british pronunciation, it's the correct one.
We can pronounce "aluminum" fine;
we just prefer not to.
Ahhh, you’re cracked! LOL it’s pronounced Ah Lume In Um, not Ah Lume In Im In E Um inuminumonumian! LOL let’s not even get into what ya call a cigarette!! LMAO
I have an uncle that lives in the Isle of Man. When he was in the States for Christmas, we were hanging out talking and catching up when he asked me for a cigarette. All I could do was look at him dismayed and ask “You want a WHAT??!” LMAO I can’t say what he called it on here because they will block my comment! LOL
In this video, i am shocked about rifle capabilities in bad way. I have CZ 600 Alpha in 223 (610 mm barrel and 1:7 twist rate) and it shoots far better than this model. Best performance was 69 gr SMK, other rounds are not that good, but 5 shots group are under 30 mm for 100 m with 77 SMK and 77 gr Nosler CC. Now i am happy that i purchased Alpha model over this.
Three shots group is a group, no doubt about it, we cant forgot, that 3 poits determine plain, not two in geomterical point of view. My opinion in this is that 3 shots are enough for hunting purposes, if i have at least 10 of them for some statistical conslusions. I never get my best group, not my average group, but my worst group, this is what can happen, this is what i can cout for.
We cant forgot, how brain works and what type or part of information is saved and what goes to trash, this is one of many reasons, why people "lies" about rifle and marksmanship abilities.
Post 10 shot groups please :)
There's people on UA-cam who think hitting a 12 inch plate at 100 yards is "zero"
And if that's all they want to do with their rifle, they're right.
A little bit of "play in the butt" has never hurt anyone...
A sniper needs a first shot hit within 4in/10cm no matter the range, is a different thing than a target shooter shooting long strings where barrel heating may cause a problem, or a DM needs 6in/15cm for maybe 5 to ten shots at max 600y/meters, and for a hunting rifle you may need to get 4in/10cm for max 2 shots from a cold barrel at much closer ranges if you hunt in forest country. So the demand vary for the situation, and there are more than one cause for groups gun ammo shooter weather situation, this keeps the shooter awake in the knight, the ammo maker happy to bank all the money, the gun maker happy for selling to extreme guns to those who do not need them or think the rifle will help with bad posturing and trigger management and the auxiliary part companies that thrive on the shooters who think they need 1moa for everything they do. Start cheap on gun, shoot a lot of dry firing, then shoot a lot with cheap ammo, then when the shooter is consistent go for better ammo better gun better weather.
I think you are confusing police/paramilitary hostage rescue work with actual war fighting. A sniper doesnt need a 10cm group at any range. They will be quite happy as long as its anywhere from your pelvis to your head and fairly centre mass. Minute of man. 4:38 4:38
@zoiders I made no distinction between LE and military as there might be some overlapping. And as body protection is almost standard today, so a more precise shot than minute of man. In WWI they had mostly heads to aim and shoot at. Sniping on people in the open with a kaftan as the only protection is another thing.
@@dmg4415No. Body armour that will stop a full power round isn't as common as you think. Plates might. Helmets won't. There are plenty of unpleasant places to be injured other than centre mass.
@zoiders So, military snipers training to do headshoots are training to be too precise? Could I presume that you have experience from that type of training, either as a LEO and/or as a soldier?
@@dmg4415Well you clearly haven't if you think you are consistently getting 10cm groups from say a L96A1 at 800 meters which is the limit of its effective range.
racist flag
you'd know given that you designed it :p
As a long time benchrest shooter and current fclass, if you have a 223 squirrel rifle that won’t agg below a moa at 50 yards, your rifle either has some serious ignition issues or the barrel is of very poor quality. That or you need to spend a day with a benchrest shooter learning the fundamentals. It isn’t even that difficult to shoot ten ten round groups at 50 yards/ meters with a quality 22LR rifle that will agg below a half moa and that is with aperture sights. Those four and one vertical targets are either firing pin drag causing erratic ignition or you aren’t holding constantly even tension on the rifle. That stock definitely is working against you in that regard. But yes, I agree, 3 shot groups are statistically meaningless, 5 are better and ten is about the minimum. However I’d be willing to bet about half of those outliers were caused but shooting errors with a unfriendly stock design making it more difficult to be consistent. You’d be better off running a bag under the grip and basically shooting it like a long barreled handgun. But when doing that (or anytime really) it’s important not to try to steer the gun with the rear. Also when testing firearm accuracy, always use flags. Especially on seemingly calm days as reversals are common and will kill even a 50 yard group.,👍🏼👍🏼
"It isn’t even that difficult to shoot ten ten round groups at 50 yards/ meters with a quality 22LR rifle that will agg below a half moa and that is with aperture sights."
I love claims like this since they're so easily testable. The ISSF 50m rifle target has a 10.4mm 10 ring. If we include the diameter of the bullet, a centered 1.1 MOA centre-to-centre group will score every shot at least a 10.0.
Here we have the results of the 50m men's prone rifle at the ASIA OLYMPIC QUALIFICATION RIFLE / PISTOL, JAKARTA, INA, 5 JAN - 18 JAN 2024
www.issf-sports.org/competitions/results/detail.ashx?cshipid=3169&resultkey=3b3b303b5250524d3b313b493b493b313b303b30
You can see every shooter's targets. None of the top 3 scored every shot a 10. The absofrickinglutely amazing shooting of the winner (only 1 shot out of the 10) isn't even close to your half-MOA there that supposedly anyone can do, he's mostly around double that. With rifles that are way beyond a "quality 22LR rifle", with batch-selected top-notch ammo and more training than you could possibly imagine.
So the 50m .22 prone World #1 shot, sling supported, aperture sights, with a seriously expensive rifle, batch tested ammo and more training than most of us could even imagine, 10 round groups of, in MOA: 0.852, 0.607, 0.770, 0.813, 0.765, 0.600.
And yet apparently it isn't even that difficult to shoot under 0.5 MOA with a quality .22lr rifle and aperture sights?
The world #3, who came 3rd in the same Olympic qual, seems to have been over 1 MOA for each of his 6 10-round groups (eyeballing it, I'm not importing them all into Ballistic-X again cos it's a PITA). Just to give you an idea of how unbelievably exceptional the world #1 is...
We were talking benchrest. Not prone with a sling. At least that is what I thought, but you are correct, I misspoke. I meant to say 1/2 inch which would be 1 moa at 50 with a 22LR. My bad and good catch 👍🏼
1 MOA for 10 rounds is still rather exaggerated though... Most rifle and ammo combinations won't get near that.
Here's an example of a superb result from Eley batch testing of top-end ammo from a customer's top-end rifle in a machine rest: eley.co.uk/understanding-eley-test-range-results/
That runs .54 MOA centre-to-centre for a 40 shot group. At great expense.
Thats a lot of money for something not as fun as a No 5.