Bed and float 700adl

A 25 shot composite group size is not a fair indication of the rifle/shooter/conditions probability of hitting the target center on the next shot, but a representation of the worst that can be expected, based on 10/25ths of the number of shots fired.

Four shots of each group could have gone into, say one hole and the fifth out of the group by 1/2". Perhaps a fairer test would be to discard the worst shot of five and measure the rest of each group. (I've noticed at least one gun magazine writer do that recently.)
 
There's two types of accuracy assessing methods; one's based on the shooter's emotions and the other on equipment statistics.

Emotional ones tend to eliminate those shot holes furthest from group center or point of aim. A common trait of those of this reasoning is to focus on the smallest groups shot and virtually ignore the biggest ones. They're infatuated with the smallest groups but don't realize that they're the result of all the variables cancelling each other out for the most part. The biggest groups happen when all the variables add up together. The smallest of several few shot groups is stored in ones memory; all the rest are forgotten. Another is to get the average size of several few-shot groups. But the same average number will apply to two series of shots, one having a range from tiny to huge and the other only a third as much range; the series with the largest single group that's pretty big will have the same average as the series with a smaller group that's the largest one. That happens more often that people realize. The basic reasoning is, tests with groups ranging from 2 to 9 units of measure are from a more accurate system than one whose groups range from 4 to 7. units. A composite of all groups fired is larger than the biggest one; 99% of the time. It matters not to people in this group that the smallest group any system produces is seldom, if ever, bettered.

Statistical ones include all fired shots and have some average performance indicator. They include all fired shots; sometimes a couple hundred shots if comparing a few different loads and want at least 95% confidence in the accuracy level each produces. The best may well be the average distance shot holes are from group center, or mean radius of all shot holes from group center, tells one what to expect from all shots fired. More often than not, the more shots in the group, the bigger the mean radius is. The group center may not be the point of aim as the test is not to verify the sights are zeroed; that's easily corrected by sight adjustment which may not be able to get it exact. The mean radius doubled is an indicator of the average several shot group size. The extreme spread is typically 4 to 5 times the mean radius or 2 to 3 times the average group size.

A good way to establish an accuracy level goal for your stuff is to decide what's the furthest distance is you'll accept missing your point of aim. You'll have too shoot your stuff into no more than twice that miss distance. Some people don't want to miss it at all; zero times two equals about zero.

Ones time and materials are better used making the largest groups smaller, not the smallest ones a little bit tinier. Your miss distance from point of aim will be less.
 
It's obvious to me that people on this board have different expectations, some of whom are match shooters, some who are only interested in hunting accuracy and only shoot a few rounds per year, to confirm zero. Others, like me, have different expectations for rifles for different uses, but certainly more than the average shooter.

A person who can keep all their shots in a 3" circle at 100 yards from various field positions, including offhand, can often kill game as well or better than the one who only shoots from the bench and expects 1/4 MOA (unless he hunts from a bench).

I, like others, have different accuracy expectations from my deer rifle than from my target rifles. Some folks who don't handload also read and enjoy these boards, but still shoot and enjoy themselves.

Sometimes we can get a bit carried away by making threads into highly technical discussions. It doesn't necessarily help the original poster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top